Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 6,038 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!

    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki

    Note: This ideology is not Arctofire's ideology anymore. It is here purely for historical reasons. For current ideology, see Neo-Arctoism.

    Arctoism is the self insert ideology of Arctofire. He can generally be described as centre-left on economic issues and centre-right on social and cultural issues. This combination makes him a Paternalistic Conservative, though he nevertheless has several unique and syncretic elements.

    On economics he is a fairly mainstream Social Democrat, supporting a strong welfare state, a mixed economy, and good public services funded via taxation. He is also very supportive of Environmentalism.

    In regards to social issues, Arctoism's variety of social conservatism differs from other PatCons in that it is based less around religious and family values and more on a strong hostility and hawkishness against modern Woke Culture.

    Philosophical Basis

    Arctoism is philosophically a conservative. He believes that humans are naturally hierarchical and tribalistic, are more emotional than rational, and that utopian ideologies wishing to create a new society from scratch have almost always failed because they forget these uncomfortable truths. Whilst he recognizes that certain individuals do perform selfless acts to strangers, this is a minority behaviour that is impossible to teach the majority unless they personally benefit. Therefore, institutions should be designed with the worst of human behaviour in mind. With this, he echoes the Classical Conservatism of Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke.

    He is also an adherent of Petersonism, believing that humans have free will and should focus on improving themselves before they blame others, with the current victimhood obsessed culture being destructive.

    Distinct from Peterson however, he also recognizes that even motivated, positively thinking, and hard working individuals can have terrible misfortunes that hinder them from fulfilling their potential, like a child falling sick in a nation without Universal Healthcare. Society must therefore strike a balance, giving people as much opportunity as possible and supporting them in bad situations they have no control over, but also holding people responsible for their own behaviour and emphasising individual agency. This is philosophically a mid 20th century Social Liberal position.

    In his view, both individuals and the state should try to make the 'least unfair' nation possible. This means recognizing that there will always be unfair advantages between individuals, but doing their best to lessen them. Every citizen, whether rich or poor, should pay their fair share to society and think of others instead of just themselves.

    However, he believes it is only feasible to focus on national level inequality, and believes that attempting to reduce global inequality is unrealistic. Government's first responsibility is to protect the interests of it's citizens, and cannot help everyone in the world. The welfare of those in poorer countries is the responsibility of the governments of those countries.



    Arctoism believes in a Nordic style system. This consists of a strong social safety net and universal public services funded by high taxes, state ownership of key infrastructure, and strong trade unions, combined with a friendly business environment, flexible labor markets, and fiscal sustainability.

    Despite his interventionist and welfarist tendencies, Arctoism is not a full on Socialist, and still supports Capitalism (defined as a system of profit, supply & demand, and private property). He believes capitalism has done wonders for human civilisation, but requires intervention and welfare to maintain that success and maximize its potential.

    He is skeptical of all forms of socialism, saying that they have all proved inferior to Social Capitalism every time they have been attempted.

    He does however recommend State Capitalism for developing countries, greatly impressed with its results in South Korea and File:PCB-Cball-Taiwan.png Taiwan, though doesn't believe it is desirable when countries become more developed.

    Fiscal Policy

    Arctoism believes that governments shouldn't spend outside their means; with budgets being kept balanced during periods of growth and government debt being kept below 60% of GDP. State infrastructure investment would be funded via a government owned development bank independent of the treasury to avoid this. However, being an adherent of Keynesian economics, he believes that the state should use deficit spending to raise aggregate demand in the economy when there is a recession.

    Arctoism wants taxes to be relatively high and progressive to enable the funding of the welfare state, whilst also being as simple and easy to understand for individuals and businesses as possible. He would have:

    • Income Tax (set at a progressive rate)
    • Corporation Tax (rebates for green innovation companies)
    • Capital Gains Tax
    • Sales Tax (including a higher rate on luxury goods)
    • Land Value Tax (to fund local authorities)
    • Financial Services Tax (a small 0.1%-0.5% charge on every trade of financial assets)
    • Currency Transaction Tax (tax on short term currency exchange above a threshold, to stop speculative attacks on the currency)
    • Carbon Tax (charged on businesses to help fight climate change)
    • Digital Services Tax (an additional tax for big tech companies)
    • Recreational Substances Tax (charged on alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and other recreational drugs)
    • Import Duties

    Corporate tax avoidance would be completely illegal, with companies being forced to pay tax on the profits generated in the country or else lose their business licences. Legal firms that assist in corporate tax avoidance will also be illegal and subject to harsh penalties.

    Banking & Finance

    Arctoism believes in the independence of the central bank and wishes to keep inflation below 5%. He rejects money creation to fund fiscal expenditure, however, in times of recession and chronic deflation, he supports quantitative easing.

    Arctoism wants strict regulations on banks and the financial sector.

    • Mortgage backed securities and merging of investment and commercial banks should be banned.
    • All trades of financial securities will be subject to the Financial Services Tax.
    • Banks would have high reserve ratios to lower the risk of destructive bubbles.
    • All short term currency exchange above a threshold will be subject to a heavy Currency Transaction Tax.

    The government would also own an aforementioned development bank, and a sovereign wealth fund for the long term health of government accounts.

    Arctoism supports moving towards a purely digital currency and phasing out cash. This is because digital transactions are easier to trace and allows the authorities to catch out tax avoiders, speculators, drug dealers, and other criminals.

    Public vs Private Ownership

    Arctoism believes in a capitalist mixed economy. Natural monopolies, services that all of society relies on, sectors which don't benefit from competition, and technology essential for national security, should be state owned and run without concern for profit. The upper management of these publicly owned bodies would be appointed by non-partisan committees of specialists as opposed to politicians. The services in question include:

    • Electric grid
    • Water and sanitation systems
    • Railways
    • Bus services (owned and run by local authority)
    • Postal service
    • Health service
    • Certain television channels and news outlets
    • Government software and algorithms

    However, the larger the state is, the more difficult it is to keep it efficient and transparent. Private enterprise and market competition is also crucial, and will make up the majority of economic activity and employment. Care will be taken to ensure the 'ease of doing business', with red tape and wasteful bureaucracy cut to a minimum.


    Arctoism supports a universal child benefit given to all parents, similar to Poland's 500+ Scheme. This is because he believes that all children should be given an opportunity to succeed, and also wants to maintain stable birthrates by enabling parents to have children without suffering financially. However, this money must be spent on goods and services relating to the child's welfare, being monitored to avoid parents using it to benefit themselves.

    He would also give allowances to the genuinely disabled and those that care for the disabled.

    For the unemployed, Arctoism supports the Danish A-Kasse system, where a worker voluntarily joins a trade union managed fund for a minimum of a year whilst in work, and then receives 90% of their previous income for a maximum of two years if they lose their job, so long as they are actively looking for work or gaining employable skills.

    He thinks this system is good because it promotes personal responsibility, gives the worker and their family more financial security, and also allows employers to have the ability to hire and fire workers easily, enabling low unemployment. This system is known as 'flexicurity'.

    For those who haven't been previously enrolled in a fund, he supports a subsistence level Supplementary Income benefit, dependent on claimants looking for work, that is gradually reduced as income from work increases, to prevent claimants falling into the 'benefit trap'. He also believes however that those that are able to work, and refuse, should not get financial support from the state, as personal prosperity is also up to the individual to want to improve themselves and 'stand up straight with their shoulders back'. Those that are hard drug users, obese, or alcoholics should be denied welfare until they show personal initiative to improve their situation.

    For workplace pensions, he believes it would be simpler if the employer contribution was removed, with companies having to pay more corporation tax and with the proceeds going towards state contribution to employee pensions instead.

    This would end the complicated system of contributions and entitlements and make business operations easier. Employees would be responsible for managing their pensions as opposed to the employers, with them given a choice of either paying into the state run pension scheme or a private scheme. There would be a non-contributory state pension for poorer pensioners, means tested for income they receive from other pensions.

    Trade Unions

    Arctoism believes that trade unions should have an active presence in society, and should work with employers as partners instead of adversaries. He supports sectoral collective bargaining, with employment advertising agencies by law required to red-list companies that do not pay the unions rates of pay. He believes sectoral bargaining is the most effective way of ensuring fair wages across the economy, and will make businesses more innovative as they will be unable to undercut competitors simply by lowering wages.

    Unions will manage the unemployment insurance funds, making union membership compulsory for anyone who wants to sign onto a fund. The right to join a union and address grievances through union channels will be protected by law. They will protect employees from abuses, and will be responsible for enforcing employment law, taking employers to court if need be.

    However, unions must co-operate with the state and be politically independent, forbidden from being associated with parties or donating to political campaigns. They must accept wage controls from the government if it needs to control inflation without striking. Strikes must be linked to a specific grievance, and general strikes used as a political weapon should be treated as a form of sedition.


    Arctoism views housing as a basic right, not as a financial asset. He supports a high degree of regulation and state intervention in the housing sector, consisting of:

    • Banning foreign non-residents from buying up properties.
    • Banning the practice of leaving properties vacant to ride a speculative wave and selling them off at a higher price.
    • Any vacant properties should be bought or expropriated by the local authority and let out.
    • Individuals can have a maximum of two properties, with second homes charged a higher rate of LVT and required to be let out to tenants when unoccupied. Only housing associations can own an unlimited number of properties.
    • Being a landlord should not be a full time job.
    • All landlords and housing associations would be set rent controls by the local authority, taking into account the value and size of the property, time spent on maintenance, and demand.
    • Supporting the development of tenant associations to protect the rights of tenants against landlords.
    • Local authorities financing the construction of houses and apartments to meet demand not met by the private sector, with residents of these properties having the 'right to buy' their homes from the authority at a discount price.
    • Prioritisation of private property developers building housing for first time buyers as opposed to 'buy for letting'.

    Foreign Trade

    Arctoism's stance on foreign trade is complicated and varies depending on the circumstance and industry.

    He is apprehensive of globalization due to the vulnerability of global finance and supply chains. In addition, the offshoring of industry has led the decimation of manufacturing and consequently the trade union movement, leading to wage stagnation. However, he recognises that few countries can be completely self sufficient whilst enjoying a comfortable standard of living, and that attempts at autarky and import-substitution-industrialization historically have ended in economic disaster.

    He supports low tariffs and free trade between countries with similar labour standards, environmental standards, and currency strength, whilst having high tariffs on goods from poorer countries. Whilst he recognizes the benefits that globalization has had on the third world, he thinks the people of the west need to be put first. He would aim to make products cheaper via technology and productivity increases rather than offshoring.



    As an Eco-Conservative, Arctoism is very passionate about the environment; believing that nature has intrinsic worth and that preserving it is a duty of humankind. He sees it as a tragedy how many conservatives have taken climate change denialist positions to appease the fossil fuel lobby (a group he sees as the lowest scum of humanity deserving of the maximum possible punishments), leading the issue to become one purely associated with progressivism.

    He strongly supports the Paris Agreement to keep global warming below 2C, as well as being strongly against plastic waste and the littering of the natural environment; supporting a sharp reduction in plastic use and more recycling.

    Whilst he admires the mainstream environmental movement for bringing attention to the issue and countering the lies of the fossil fuel lobby, he thinks their opposition to technologies like nuclear power and obsession with 'natural' products has been very negative for the climate, as well as hurting their credibility. Arctoism is strongly pro-nuclear and pro-GMO, supporting the technologies alongside renewables, green hydrogen, and electric cars. He also dislikes the ultra-woke orientation of Green Parties worldwide. He is an ardent supporter of Eco-Capitalism and Bright Green Environmentalism.

    He reluctantly supports groups like Greta Thunberg's School Strike for Climate and Extinction Rebellion, because whilst he finds them utterly obnoxious and cringeworthy, he concedes that mainstream politicians have let the public down by inaction, and admires the progress they have made in making governments and corporations take the issue more seriously.

    Climate Change Measures

    The climate action program Arctoism proposes is more market based than the leftist Green New Deal, but no less radical. It borrows heavily from the European Green Deal and the German Green Party's 2021 Manifesto, although being pro-nuclear. It would include:

    * Creating binding targets for a zero carbon economy by 2040.

    • Having an independent climate change commission, requiring the government to introduce concrete policies that will lower emissions with net zero emissions by 2040.
    • Work with the rest of the world to limit warming to less than 2 degrees through the Paris Agreement.

    * Setting a heavy carbon tax on businesses, increased annually, and distributing the proceeds of the tax to all citizens to ensure that lower income individuals are insulated from potential price increases; an approach known as Carbon Fee & Dividend.

    • Forcing financial institutions and businesses to immediately divest from fossil fuels.
    • Banning fossil fuel companies from claiming compensation on fossil fuel bans.
    • Banning advertising from fossil fuel companies.
    • Having companies that willingly funded climate denial since the 1970s stripped of all financial assets, and individuals responsible given the harshest possible sentences.

    * Banning all coal fired power plants no later than 2025, with no compensation to owners. Electricity generation must be 100% renewable and nuclear by 2030.

    • Providing generous tax incentives for renewable energy, nuclear energy, and green hydrogen production.

    * Banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030, with auto companies required to start making plans for the transition immediately.

    • Having the state development bank invest heavily in road charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.
    • Gradually withdrawing subsidies for aviation unless they transition away from fossil fuels, instead subsidising rail transport, electric passenger ships, and airships.

    * Requiring industries such as steel to submit plans to phase out coal and replace it with green hydrogen.

    * Planting billions of trees and restoring habitats worldwide.

    • Putting harsh sanctions on countries that destroy rainforests, like Brazil and Indonesia.

    Arctoism views plastic waste as utterly disgusting, and is horrified when people drop litter in public parks and gardens. He sees the pollution of oceans with plastic as a complete tragedy for wildlife and eco-systems. and calls for urgent action. He would:

    • Ban all single use plastic items.
    • Ensure that all plastic items are made from at least 50% recycled material.
    • Ensure that all packaging is either recyclable or biodegradable.
    • Create a plastic bottle reuse system where people who return their plastic bottles to shops get money back.
    • Require supermarkets to phase out plastic packaging for dried products, replacing them with reusable dispensers where customers have to take their own containers.
    • Ban the export of plastic waste to third world countries, requiring it to be managed nationally.
    • Increase the fines for littering, put public notices on bins and around public areas notifying the public about the penalties, and install CCTV cameras at littering hotspots to catch litterers.


    Physical Health

    Arctoism is a staunch believer in Universal Healthcare.

    He describes the American system as 'evil' for how it lets health insurance providers and pharmaceutical companies charge extortionate amounts to fill their own pockets, and how families falling on misfortune often lose everything.

    He advocates a state run, free at the point of use, single payer system funded by income taxes like the British NHS, though he wishes to reverse some of the internal market reforms and return to a centralized, entirely socialistic delivery model.

    * Drug prices from pharmaceutical companies should be negotiated by the state, with prescription charges either very cheap or free in the case of long term conditions.

    • All primary care services such as hospitals, ambulances, and A & E should be completely publicly owned, though some specialist services like dentistry can be provided privately.
    • The healthcare system should be adequately funded and staffed, with at least 9% of GDP devoted to public healthcare spending.
    • People must be either citizens or permanent residents in order to receive free healthcare.

    This being said, he also expects people to take a measure of responsibility for their own health and not to abuse the system. Measures to ensure this would include:

    • Handing out large fines for those that miss two or more GP appointments.
    • Charging the obese, smokers, alcoholics, and other drug addicts for the treatment of conditions that their unhealthy lifestyles caused.

    Mental Health

    Arctoism supports mental health treatment for people who are genuinely mentally unwell, suffering from issues like bi-polar, depression, eating disorders, and schizophrenia (as well as transgenderism). However, he thinks that the issue of mental health in current society is completely romanticized to an shocking degree, particularly amongst young women, and the cultural fixation therapy and diagnoses for every minor personality trait can be self defeating.

    He thinks conditions like Autism are completely over-diagnosed, with so called 'high functioning autism' being a partly self reinforcing social construct that robs those diagnosed of a belief in free will and individual agency.

    As somebody diagnosed with Aspergers himself, he feels that the diagnosis stunted his development and is something that can be cured through individual self-improvement, seeing many other people that use Aspergers as an excuse not to try.

    He also thinks the lumping in of 'low functioning' and 'high functioning' into the same Autism Spectrum to be politically correct to 'neurodiversity' is an insult to individuals like himself. Low functioning children should be given special medical attention but mild Aspergers traits should not be diagnosed.

    With victimhood considered a virtue, especially for women and minorities, 'therapy' is endlessly promoted as the solution to personal problems and any holding back of emotions is seen as 'bottling it up'.

    Whilst he doesn't deny that asking for help is sometimes important, he also feels that sometimes being encouraged to 'talk through issues' is in fact being encouraged to 'pick one's life apart and all that is wrong with it' instead of focusing on the positive, and in his experience, can often make these issues worse.

    Being encouraged to 'pull oneself up by their bootstraps', emphasising the power of individual agency, and positive thinking, he views as very positive and productive to improving people's mental health.

    Social & Cultural


    Arctoism is relatively socially conservative from a modern western context. Whilst he isn't an ultra-traditionalist, he has a profound dislike of modern woke progressivism, believing its obsession with identity, diversity, and victimhood is a major cause of the west's cultural and moral decline.

    Woke culture became mainstream because of the counter-culture and New Left movements of the 1960s, which took hold of university campuses and gained the support of the majority of students, who then went on to occupy the establishment.

    This enabled their ideas to become increasingly hegemonic in the decades since, with what leftist student activist Rudi Dutshke called the 'long march through the institutions' having been allowed to take place by complacent moderates.

    He wishes to usher in a counter-revolution in culture as successful as the counter-revolution in economics brought forth by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, where it becomes the new cultural hegemony that even the opposition is forced to adhere to. He however hates Neoliberalism's free market fundamentalism and socially liberal inclinations, and laments how the left won the culture war and the right the economic war since the 1960s. He wants a total reversal with a new economically left, socially conservative status quo.

    To enable this, there should be a focus on building non-state actors to promote opposition to woke, so that anti-woke beliefs continue being influential even if a socially progressive government is in power. The 'intersectional alliance' would be divided through government focus on the incompatibility in the goals of transgender activists, feminists, and conservative Muslims. Social conservatism would also be repackaged with 'progressive' language and advertising, emphasising words like 'moderation', 'tolerance', 'free speech' 'freedom of choice' and 'democracy'. Social conservatives would also be portrayed as the victims and woke activists as aggressors in the media.

    Despite his view that woke culture poses an existential threat, he doesn't support the government curtailing freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This is because he thinks it is important for anti-woke to have the moral high-ground, and doing what Law and Justice in Poland and Fidesz in Hungary are doing risks backfiring and eliciting sympathy for woke from the broader public.

    He believes that the culture war needs to be primarily fought outside government channels, with a strong, militant, and active civil society, consisting of associations of businesses, youth organizations, media outlets, charities, and religious organizations expanding the Overton Window in a more socially conservative direction. This will enable it to be sustainable in the long term, with the government serving as an 'enabler' rather than the primary actor.


    Arctoism pays special attention to the youth. This is because woke progressives often taunt about how young people support their agenda, and that it's only a matter of time before they succeed at getting their latest demand. Terrified by this prospect, and social attitude surveys and the pattern of the last half century suggesting the taunters may be right, he believes it is vital to raise a generation that is more socially conservative than their parents. He plans to:

    • Ban the teaching of woke ideas like gender fluidity and critical race theory in schools.
    • The creation of large networks of youth associations that teach traditional values and opposition to woke.
    • An active campaign to discourage social media usage, to both improve mental health but also stop the spread of destructive ideas.
    • Promote Apoliticism amongst the youth, teach them to focus on 'getting their own houses in order before they criticise the world.'
    • Use charismatic and attractive young people to promote traditional, patriotic values, particularly women.


    Arctoism is not religious himself, and believes the character of god or god's existence is and always will be unknowable. That being said, he admires the historical influence of Christianity on shaping western culture, and recognizes that organised religion is the only force that has been effective at getting broad sections of society to actively oppose social progressivism.

    The decline of Christianity in the west to him has created a culture without direction or values, and one that is decadent, nihilistic, selfish, sexually deviant, and hateful. In the Anglo-Saxon world, 'secularism' has almost always meant giving cultural influence to woke identity politics, and whilst he respects and admires Laicism in countries like France, and strongly defends it against attempts by Islamo-leftists to call it racist, he does not advocate it worldwide due to it's typical ineffectiveness at fulfilling a nation's desire for moral guidance.

    He would like to re-emphasise Christian values as a uniting force, without accidently giving power to unhinged evangelical fanatics. He wants Anglicanism to have its cultural significance re-established, with a more youthful, confident, and evangelising membership that would fuse Christian and nationalistic values.


    Arctoism believes that racism (which he defines as discrimination and hatred based on skin colour or ethnic origin) is evil, obscene and totally unacceptable in a civilized society. He believes people of all ethnic backgrounds should be treated with the same level of dignity and respect, as well as first and foremost as fellow individuals and human beings. He strongly supports the principle of Martin Luther King that people should 'not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character' , and therefore wishes for a Colorblind society.

    Because of this, he strongly opposes Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, which he views as American ideologies that have spread like viruses across the developed world. He believes that they have worsened race relations and are of themselves racist, as they constantly attempt to categorize people based on certain characteristics rather than viewing them as individuals, and with this, are judging people by skin color and not their character.

    He feels that whilst such theories may make a degree of sense in the USA, where slavery and legal racial discrimination were a major part of their society for centuries and there being numerous occasions where police have murdered black people (with him initially supporting Black Lives Matter when focused on this issue), it does not carry the same weight in European countries like Britain.

    Critical Race Theory would be banned from being taught in schools or universities, with it being deemed a threat to the social fabric of the nation. A 'colorblind' society would be the goal to strive towards, with constant discussions about race only serving to make people see the differences between people of different ethnicities and therefore increase levels of racism.

    Whilst he does not deny that there are individual people that are racist in Britain, and believes incidents of racist behaviour should be punished, he thinks that woke activists use racist comments made by a small minority of individuals as 'proof' that an entire country is racist.

    The woke activists who claim to be fighting for racial equality in fact ignore all evidence that doesn't suit their agenda, such as Asian students performing better than white students. They also create and merge artificial categories like BAME and constantly agitate to stir up ethnic tension, being a 'solution looking for a problem'.

    Their constant referencing of the legacy of slavery is totally irrelevant as slavery was an institution that existed for millennia in Africa, but yet white christian activists succeeded in abolishing. The self deprecating, 'original sin' conception of 'white privilege' of woke activists he views as a joke attempt to substitute Christianity with anti-western, post-colonialist, anti-white racist garbage.

    He thinks its impossible for racism to be stamped out completely, as it is a part of human nature to favour members of one's own 'in-group', but this should be minimized through education and exposure to people of different ethnicities, focusing on what unites rather than divides them.


    Arctoism is relatively tolerant about immigration, seeing it as important for sectors of the economy where there is a real shortage of qualified native workers. However, he always thinks that natives should be prioritised for roles and that immigrants should not used as a means of bringing down native wages.

    He views it as important that immigrants integrate into the host country, and opposes Multiculturalism, believing it to be divisive and an obstacle to integration (for instance with conservative Muslims). He instead favours Interculturalism, where minority groups can keep their distinct cultural identity but still actively participate in and integrate into the institutions, values, and culture of the nation as a whole. With these views he is a Civic Nationalist.

    He supports the points based immigration systems of Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. He is prepared to accept some refugees, but believes that the 'right to asylum' means that one has the right to flee persecution and settle in the nearest 'safe' country, not any country that they choose. He therefore does not believe that this applies to refugees that leave surrounding countries to come to Europe and claim asylum in order to have a better life. Whilst he sympathises with that desire for opportunity on a personal level, he thinks that the wellbeing and safety of a nation's citizens have to come first.


    Arctoism is a supporter of Conservative Feminism. He views the tendency of young women to be more supportive of woke activism, and the inability to attract them to conservative causes, as a major obstacle to his goals. Women are the most important element of the 'intersectional alliance' to get on side, as they are half the population and heavily influence the thoughts and opinions of men.

    He wants to water down the meaning of the word 'feminism' so that it can become a vague term to describe the advocacy of women's interests. His plan also involves promoting certain strands of the feminist movement to attack others, particularly TERFs, who he sees as 'useful idiots' in the fight against transgenderism. His own branch of feminism would emphasise the individual agency of women, the supremacy of the west compared to other cultures in regards to women's rights, and that genderfluid doctrine is a threat to the safety and rights of women.

    He believes women should have equality of opportunity with men in regards to education and jobs, and be completely equal in the eyes of the law. He also believes that women deserve every right to achieve individual self-realisation without the constraint of their sex.

    With this, he strongly supports the goals of First Wave Feminism and a majority of the goals of Second Wave Feminism. He also supports some of the goals of more recent feminism such as emphasising the importance of sexual consent, being against sexual harassment, and strongly condemning violence against women, though these were also goals of the Second Wave. However, he is against women using feminism and supposed female victimhood as a means of shaming and controlling men when they don't get their way, which he feels many modern feminists do.

    He opposes positive discrimination as well as government promotion of men and women being equally represented in all sectors of employment.

    He is perfectly comfortable with the idea that some jobs are primarily male and others are primarily female, so long as women are given the opportunity to do traditionally masculine jobs if they have the same qualifications. He supports 'equal pay for equal work', and believes companies should be prosecuted for paying women less than men, but sees the 'gender pay gap' as misleading and virtually impossible to completely close as it does not take into account type of work.

    He is also concerned about the low birthrate of western countries, and wishes to bring it up to the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman.

    This is to prevent the crippling economic effects of an ageing population and the need to keep on bringing in immigrant workers which could threaten societal cohesion. The traditional heterosexual family should be re-emphasized, with motherhood celebrated and seen as a goal for women. The 'model woman' in an Arctoist society would be a dual-breadwinner with her husband, be independent and self reliant, but also be a mother. There would be extensive childcare provision to support working mothers, in addition to paid family leave and the 500+ benefit.

    On the issue of abortion, he is surprisingly pro-choice. This is partly because he views legal abortion as safer than illegal abortion, as well as because he believes bringing severely disabled children, lacking the means for a fulfilling life, into the world to be immoral.

    He is a Eugenicist, believing its non-racist and non-murderous advocates at the beginning of the 20th century were entirely rational and well intentioned, and viewing its ostracism after the Nazis, who used it for racist and genocidal ends, to be a tragedy for the human race.


    Arctoism believes that the LGBT movement (not individuals) is a subversive, toxic, and dangerous influence on western culture. It uses institutional infiltration, guilt-tripping, public shaming, and cancel culture to get the support of state and corporate actors, and no matter how many concessions are given, the movement only grows more unhinged and extreme. The goalposts are constantly moved, so that things that were almost universally ridiculed as too far 10 years ago, like non-binary gender, are obliged to be normalized under the threat of ostracism today.

    Behind this are organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids in Britain, and the vast amount of LGBT organisationsin the United States (covering virtually all fields and institutions). Arctoism believes that this cannot be allowed to continue, and that the west's traditional values should be proudly stood up for against these organisations that wish to destroy them.

    He doesn't have an issue with gays, bisexuals, and lesbians as individuals, and he thinks they should be left alone and protected from hate crimes, so long as they don't try to influence mainstream society or are sexually deviant in public. However, he hates the degeneracy of Pride Parades and the LGBT organisations that historically promoted gays and lesbians now using their platform to promote gender fluidity.

    He believes that Transgenderism is a mental illness like Schizophrenia and Anorexia, and its removal from the list of mental disorders by the WHO being nothing more than ideological submission to the transgender lobby. He believes non-binary gender, gender neutral pronouns, and all other gender identities outside male or female, are nothing more than ultra-individualistic expressions of victimhood that discredit the very few number of genuine gender dysphoria sufferers. According to him,Transmedicalism is the only legitimate form of transgenderism, with him believing gender transition should be an absolute last resort after intense psychological analysis and therapy, and even then believes that the medical profession and the public may have been misled as to the correct treatment by lobbyists.

    He would put through the following measures in an attempt to weaken the power of the LGBT movement, which he wants to deal with like how 'Thatcher dealt with the unions'.

    • Create a 'Free Speech Act' which would allow employees to sue employers for unfair dismissal based on political beliefs, including beliefs regarding LGBT rights.
    • Reclassify Transgenderism as a mental disorder, and make legal gender change dependent on thorough psychological analysis and through the consent of medical professionals.
    • Make it illegal to give sex hormones to under 18s.
    • Ban the recognition of non-binary gender and gender neutral pronouns in public sector workplaces.
    • Make it illegal to teach the idea that gender is fluid to children, and require the teaching of the binary nature of gender and alignment to biological sex in schools, as well as teaching against gender fluidity.
    • Ban LGBT movement's presence in primary schools.
    • Ban the LGBT presence in children's programming.
    • Shorten pride month to a single weekend.
    • Ban the presence of children at pride parades where there is nudity, exhibitionism, fetishism, or any open adult sexual behaviour.
    • Gay pride parades must happen on a set day nationwide, and cannot be in city centres.
    • Make it illegal to fly the rainbow flag on government buildings outside of the specified weekend. On the weekend, the flag cannot be placed above the national flag.
    • Dissolve LGBT organisations with disproportionate economic, cultural, or political influence.
    • Promote alternate social media platforms that don't actively promote LGBT on their platforms.
    • Make clear the distinction between gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and gender dysphoria sufferers, who are individuals that should be treated with respect, and the LGBT movement as a whole, that are subversive ideologues.
    • Focus on building up support amongst the youth with youth associations building a nationalistic counter-narrative to LGBT, in a hope to 'reverse the demographic tide'.


    Arctoism believes that a law that can't be enforced is one that might as well not exist. He supports a well funded, large, and efficient police force that will ensure that the law is abided by and wrongdoers punished, including offences like shoplifting and burglary. CCTV cameras will be installed to catch crimes, and the police will collaborate with Neighbourhood Watch schemes to tackle disorderly behaviour and bring down crime rates.

    He does not have an issue with stop and search if it helps reduce violence, and strongly opposes the 'Defund the Police' movement. However, despite believing the police is an important institution, he is against them being armed outside of extreme circumstances, wants excessive force banned, opposes qualified immunity, and believes there should be an Police Conduct Authority that ensures that cops who abuse their power like Derek Chauvin are brought to justice.

    Arctoism's views on criminal justice are mixed. He generally believes in an 'eye for an eye' and the principles of retributive justice, with the punishments of criminals proportionate to the damage caused. For instance, people who commit cold blooded premeditated murder should be subject to either life imprisonment without parole or execution.

    However, he also understands the diversity and complexity of criminal sentencing, and believes judges should look at the specific situation and context as opposed to putting a blanket punishment on an offence. For example, a woman who was continuously abused by her husband and then snapped and murdered him would be treated much less harshly than someone who sadistically raped, tortured, and murdered an innocent woman or child.

    Arctoism does not have an ethical issue with capital punishment for first degree murderers. The strongest argument he sees against it is the possibility of wrongful execution, but that to him doesn't apply to cases where the criminal admits to the crime and their guilt is unquestionable. He finds the arguments against the act of execution itself to be inconsistent, with it being criticised for being too harsh but also too lenient, and with some people often remarking that they want to 'see criminals suffer'.

    This goes against his theory of justice that the punishment must fit the crime, and thinks that in some circumstances the death penalty can be more merciful. Arctoism would give criminals who have to spend the rest of their lives in prison the option of the death penalty instead.

    Arctoism does believe that people make mistakes and should have a chance to turn their life around, but that this should not mean that prison is like a hotel, as he feels it is in Norway. Those convicted of crimes other than first degree murder should have the opportunity to learn new skills, find employment, and rebuild their lives, with him opposing punitive criminal registries that limit rehabilitation, but they must show personal initiative in this and be made aware that this is their final chance. He does not support voting rights for criminals whilst serving their sentences, believing those who have broken the law should not get a say in deciding it, though thinks it should be restored when released.

    He also recognizes that there are highly manipulative and malicious individuals who will fool the authorities of rehabilitation only to commit more crimes. He believes that repeat offenders should be treated more harshly than first time offenders, as by reoffending they have proven that they did not take rehabilitation seriously, and wants those who have re-offended separated from first time offenders to avoid them negatively influencing the latter.


    Arctoism is enthusiastic about certain new technologies, supporting a combination of heavy state subsidization and private sector innovation for green technology, medicine, genetic engineering, nano-technology, and space exploration, among others. To him, technological development is the crowning achievement of mankind as it has dramatically improved people's livelihoods, and therefore he is against complete Anarcho-Primitivism despite being uncomfortable with particular technologies.

    He sees the US Advanced Projects Research Agency (ARPA) and the collaboration between SpaceX and NASA as examples of successful public-private partnerships, and would like to see humanity become an interplanetary civilization and colonize space.

    However, he is extremely hostile to big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google. He sees them not only as exploitive, monopolistic, tax evading, data thieves, but also as a tool through which woke Californian elites can use their immense global influence to spread their ideology throughout the world. This can be seen by the frequent promotion of LGBT pride, transgender emojis, creating personalised pronouns, the donating to woke activist causes, purging anti-woke individuals from their workplaces, and the persecution of conservatives on their platforms whilst allowing far left extremism to flourish.

    He also likens social media, particularly Instagram and Snapchat, to 'opium' that has destroyed the fabric of society and given rise to a generation of youth with poor mental health, social anxiety, and insecurity around body image.

    He wants the state to promote alternative tech platforms which are positive influences on society, on the model of charitable non-profits like Ecosia and also Wikipedia, the latter of which he sees as one of the Internet's crowning achievements. A massive anti-big-tech public awareness campaign would be introduced, encouraging people to switch to government-promoted alternative platforms, and all public sector workplaces being required to avoid using services deemed harmful to society.

    He wants more focus on Computing in schools to protect the ordinary citizen from the influence of malevolent woke technocrats. The state would also have its own publicly owned Digital Services Corporation to develop software essential to public administration, like national security, tax filing, welfare provision, public health apps, etcetera, without it having to rely on big tech provision.

    Although Arctoism supports Eugenics, assisted via CRISPR and genetic engineering, he is generally against Transhumanism. This is because he believes technologies like brain-computer interfaces would massively increase the power of big tech at the expense of individuals; robbing the individual of autonomy and turning them into 'slave-consumers'. He see's such modifications as unnecessary and not worth the risk given the current existence of smartphones.

    Despite assurances that it 'won't be forced' by Transhumanists, he believes in practice it will be unless one wants to drop out of society, like internet usage is today. He also dislikes the ultra-individualist, consumeristic, and immoral tendencies of the majority of Transhumanists, who are also disproportionately pro-woke. The fact that big tech companies are woke and would likely be the ones developing Transhumanist tech makes hideous concepts like Post-Genderism a real possibility.

    He however makes exceptions for interplanetary colonists, where some degree of Transhumanism would be essential due to the lack of adaptation in humans to survive for long term periods on other planets.


    Arctoism is strongly in favor of passive and active euthanasia. He believes that it is both morally wrong and cost ineffective to have people who want to end their lives being denied the right to. He would go so far as to promote euthanasia for elderly patients with long term degenerative illnesses, particularly Alzheimer's, to reduce the suffering of themselves and those around them.

    He views the prohibition of drugs like marijuana to have been a massive failure, with the law being so frequently broken it makes a mockery of law enforcement. He is therefore pro-legalisation for both medical and recreational uses of cannabis, and pro-decriminalisation for harder substances.

    He however does not like the positivity that legalization advocates have about drugs, and still wants society to be overwhelmingly hostile to recreational drug use, only that it should move from being the responsibility of law enforcement to the responsibility of the individual to not take these harmful substances. If people need medical attention or rehabilitation as a result of substance abuse, it should come out of their own pocket. People would be made well aware of the consequences of drug use and how drug use will affect them financially via a large scale public information campaign.


    Primary & Secondary

    Arctoism believes primary & secondary education are very important for the development of productive and moral citizens. He thinks that school's purpose isn't just learning academic subjects, but how young people learn how to operate in a society. For this reason he opposes home and online schooling, believing that the social aspect of school is vital and cannot be removed without negative consequences. School attendance would be compulsory.

    He generally opposes fee paying private schools, believing they create bubbles of the upper class youth who don't interact with and hence don't understand those from less privileged backgrounds, creating class segregated education. He also prefers co-educational (mixed sex) rather than sex segregated education.

    Despite this, he has some rather market based views on schooling, believing that non-profit educational trusts competing for students will be the most effective way of enhancing quality if done correctly. This would work as follows:

    • All schools would have an annual inspection by a government agency (Ofsted as it is known in Britain), evaluating their performance in key areas and giving it either an 'outstanding', 'good', 'requires improvement' or 'inadequate' ranking in both the specific areas and overall. These inspections would be unannounced, to avoid schools 'getting ready' for the inspectors and making them seem better than they are.
    • All schools would be directly funded by the central government, with the level of funding equal per student regardless of the wealth of an area. School sites would be owned by a local authority management board, with more sites being built when required.
    • Every 5 years, non-profit educational trusts (with management salaries capped) would compete for leases from the council to manage the schools and receive government funding. The decisions would be made based on the results of the government inspection, with trusts managing schools getting 'outstanding' or 'good' retaining the leases and possibly gaining new school sites to manage, and those getting 'requires improvement' or 'inadequate' losing them (inadequate schools being immediately terminated).
    • Each family with school age children would belong to a school district of between 100,000-200,000 residents, where they can go to a school run by the trust of their choice with free public transport. If a trust owns multiple schools in the area, the students would be assigned to the school site nearest to them. Schools owned by the same trust within a school district would be evaluated as one.
    • There would be a national curriculum set by the central government that schools would have to follow, as well as standardised testing. There would also be an emphasis on traditional and patriotic values, as aforementioned, with a pledge of allegiance to the national flag obligatory every day. Young people would be taught very clearly what society expects of them, and the consequences they will face if they break the law.

    Tertiary Education

    Whilst Arctoism recognises that tertiary education is vital for the training of skilled professionals, he is deeply hostile to the woke nature of universities that have enabled the takeover of society by the New Left. He sees the overwhelmingly culturally progressive academic establishment as a key adversary.

    He doesn't want any funding for degrees that do not lead directly to employment, including a large amount of arts and humanities courses, and all universities getting state funding would be completely forbidden from offering courses such as 'gender studies', 'queer studies' and 'post-colonial studies'. Universities receiving government money also can't have professors that teach students to hate their country on their payroll, and student unions must be banned from political activism.

    University education funding should be a mixture of individual payment and state subsidization, with different degrees having different sources of funding based on their usefulness to society. He would establish three different degree tiers determining the proportion of state funding and individual payments.

    • Tier 1: Key Public Sector Roles: This consists of training for essential public sector workers, which include: doctor training, nurse training, teacher training, police training, and other public service roles that are in high demand. These courses would be provided for free, funded by the general taxpayer, and with students also able to receive maintenance grants.
    • Tier 2: STEM & Practical Humanities: This consists of all other STEM subjects like engineering, physics, chemistry, biology, and computer science, but also humanities and social sciences with a clear employability link such as business, marketing, economics, political science, and law. They would be nominally free, but graduates must pay a 'graduate levy', a small percentage of income above the median salary threshold, for the rest of their working lives. This is regardless of whether they are living in the country or abroad. The proceeds of this levy would go back to fund the universities, though the general taxpayer would also contribute some money towards these degrees. Interest free maintenance loans would be provided to students from poor backgrounds.
    • Tier 3: Arts & Academic Humanities: This consists of all arts subjects and humanities which don't have much practical use and are often just means of which students can pick up woke ideas by endlessly 'critically analysing' art. These courses include visual art, drama, and literature. To attend these courses, most students would have to pay out of pocket.

    There would also be more vocational and practical further education routes.

    Apprenticeships would be funded through an 'Apprenticeship Levy' on businesses that want to use the scheme. Apprentices would learn on the job whilst getting paid.

    Vocational Colleges would also be established for practical qualifications in trades like plumbing, electrician training, carpentry, hairdressing, graphic design, etcetera. Similar to the Graduate Levy for Tier 2 university degrees, the trade schools would be funded by a 'Trades Levy', but it would be a smaller percentage of income.

    Apprenticeships and Vocational Colleges would be promoted for less academically gifted students where they can still learn to perform valuable and high skilled jobs.



    Arctoism is somewhat supportive of Liberal Democracy, but believes that a country needs to reach a certain level of economic development before it can be properly realized.

    He supports a more Technocratic system for less developed countries to ensure both stability and the ability to push through sometimes unpopular policies that are nevertheless necessary for economic development. He views the technocratic authoritarianism of various East Asian nations to be the most effective model for modernization.

    The system of democratic government he feels has the best track record is Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchism, with the monarch providing a sense of continuity and stability as well as not coming from a partisan background. He believes it is worth noting that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are all constitutional monarchies and the most prosperous and egalitarian nations on earth. However, he also acknowledges that Parliamentary Republics like Finland, Germany, and Austria are also great democracies, and in particular views the German Basic Law as one of the greatest constitutions ever written. He strongly prefers consensus based over adversarial systems, and is a major proponent of proportional representation.

    The democratic system Arctoism proposes is nevertheless unique, blending parliamentary liberal democracy with some technocratic features.


    Arctoism proposes an imperfectly bicameral parliament.

    The lower chamber, the House of Commons, would be the predominant chamber. It would elect the government, instigate laws, have exclusive power to pass the budget, and be composed of representatives from political parties. It would be elected once every 4 years, unless there have been more than three failed attempts at forming a government and the House votes for a new election through a two thirds majority. The Commons cannot simply vote against the government in a 'vote of no confidence', instead having to propose a replacement government in a constructive 'vote of confidence'.

    Debates would be chaired by a non-political speaker, elected via a two thirds majority, who would ensure civility within the House, with the seats being laid out in a Hemicycle arrangement to promote consensus as opposed to confrontation. Aside from the noticeable aforementioned differences however, its function would be mostly similar to the British House of Commons in terms of procedure and the role of committees.

    The electoral system used to elect the House of Commons would be a form of Mixed-Member Proportional Representation, based on the system used to elect the Scottish Parliament, but with the added feature of open lists for both constituency and regional elections.

    Half of MPs would be elected in single member local constituencies using an Open List Plurality system, where all parties have to stand 3 candidates, and the party with the largest combined vote share and the most voted for candidate of that party wins the seat.

    The other half would be elected in 7 member regions using Open List Proportional Representation, where voters vote for a candidate on a party list to determine the order of priority for each seat that party wins, and allocated using the D'Hondt Formula, taking into account the number of constituency seats within that region (of which there would also be 7) that each party has won to ensure an overall proportional result. In order to gain regional seats, a party must receive over 5% of the vote nationally, and the ordering of the lists that are presented to voters can have a maximum gender imbalance of 1 (inevitable due to 7 being an odd number).

    The electoral boundaries would be drawn up by an independent Electoral Commission based on population data, with the intention to establish the most rational and natural constituencies possible. Parliament would then be able to accept or reject, but not amend, the new boundaries.

    The upper chamber would be the Senate. It would be fixed at 100 senators and all must be free of partisan affiliation, elected for staggered 8 year terms with half being elected in each election to the Commons.

    It cannot initiate most legislation but can only amend or delay for a maximum of one year bills coming from the Commons. However, it confirms justices on the Supreme Court by a two-thirds majority and has almost exclusive power over the operation, direction, and management of the civil service.

    Arctoism believes that political parties should be constitutionally required to have democratic internal structures, with rank and file members in each constituency and region selecting the candidates that appear on the party lists, as well as the national leader being elected directly by members. Political parties must have an active membership and a democratic constitution in order to be registered, and would be banned from being used as personal vehicles for politicians or celebrities to gain power. There would be a national registry of political party members, with one only being allowed to be a member of one party at any given time.

    He supports strict laws on political donations. There would be hard limits on how much an individual can donate to a political party during non-electoral periods, the limit being an estimation of the maximum donation those on lower incomes could afford (typically around $20). Corporations and unions would be banned from donating.

    For the financing of election campaigns, he envisions a 'democracy voucher' system. Ordinary cash contributions to campaign funds would be banned, with every voter being given a small voucher that they can redeem on the Electoral Commission website to give money to a political party. With this, there would be a maximum donation ceiling where a party can receive no more vouchers, to ensure they don't drown out the campaign, and TV and internet advertising slots would be given out to all parties achieving the 5% threshold, based on their result during the previous election.


    The Head of State would be the Monarch, who would rule for life and be succeeded via the principle of Absolute Primogeniture. Their role would be mostly ceremonial, but would also serve as a safeguard against tyranny and be tasked with upholding the constitution. In case of wrong doing or incapacity, the monarch can be impeached via a two thirds majority in both houses.

    The Prime Minister would be the head of government, elected by the House of Commons alongside the Cabinet and typically belonging to the largest party in the ruling coalition.

    The Cabinet would be composed of ministers, made up from members of parties from the ruling coalition. Different from Westminster Systems however is that the ministers cannot be MPs at the same time, are typically outside experts in their department, and are elected for that specific department for the entirety of the parliamentary term unless they resign or the government loses power, with full scale cabinet reshuffling not occurring. This allows ministers to build up expertise in their field and makes the government function more effectively.

    Constitution & Judicary

    The Supreme Court would consist of 7 members, appointed for non-renewable, staggered, 14 year terms with a new justice being appointed every 2 years. Justices must be between the ages of 50 and 60 when appointed, and must retire after serving their term, being granted a generous pension.

    Selecting the justices would be the responsibility of the Judicial Appointments Commission, that would appoint all the justices at all levels of the legal system and would be composed mostly of former justices. The Judicial Appointments Commission answers to the monarch directly and is separate from partisan politics.

    The commission's nominations of justices to the Supreme Court must be confirmed via a simple majority in the House of Commons and a two thirds majority in the Senate.

    The Supreme Court would be bound to interpret the constitution and all laws as they were intended to be interpreted when written, with it not allowed to take on a political role and 'find rights' within the constitution.

    The constitution would be minimalist, with it primarily being a document focused on how government should function. It would summarise the nature of the monarchy, parliament, supreme court, civil service, anti-corruption agency, electoral commission, electoral system, political parties, and campaign finance law. It would protect only minimal negative rights, as opposed to positive rights, to reduce the power of the courts and empower legislatures. These rights would be:

    • The right to free and fair elections; with automatic voter registration and free of ballot stuffing, voter coercion, voter repression, and gerrymandering.
    • The right to freedom of speech and expression, so long as it does not incite direct violence against individuals or groups, or advocates the overthrow of the constitutional order through undemocratic means.
    • The right to freedom of the press, with publicly owned media outlets forbidden from having partisan bias.
    • The right to a fair and fast trial, and to be seen as innocent until proven guilty under the law.
    • The right to be free from slavery
    • The right to be free from torture
    • The right to equality before the law, regardless of sex or ethnic origin.

    For most articles of the constitution:

    • A two thirds majority in both houses of parliament.

    For changes to the electoral system:

    • A Citizens Assembly, managed and overseen via a committee of MPs from all political parties in equal number, and confirmed by a simple majority in the House of Commons and Senate (or a three fifths majority in the Commons if voted down by the Senate), as well as a national referendum in favor.

    Civil Service

    Arctoism highly respects the role of the civil service, but believes it is important that it doesn't become a parasitic, unaccountable, managerial class looking out for its own interests; bogging government operations down with excessive bureaucracy and red tape.

    He wants the civil service to operate as an efficient governing machine dedicated to serving the country, almost in the style of a military organization. He sees Singapore as the primary country to emulate in these regards, even wishing to hire Singaporean advisors to direct the restructuring in order to do so.

    As in many countries, civil servants would be hired on a Meritocratic basis, with all applicants being required to sit an exam to determine their suitability for certain roles. However, the level of specialization would be higher, with more people from STEM backgrounds to increase the ability of the state to develop and utilize technology more effectively.

    The organization of the civil service would be overseen by a Civil Service Council, elected by the Senate. They would be responsible for managing the day to day operations of the institution, somewhat like a Board of Directors in a corporation.

    It would be the Senate's job to scrutinize the operation of the civil service, and if necessary replace members of the council.

    There would also be a Civil Service Efficiency Commission, separate from the civil service itself but present in all departments and workplaces, which would publish a frequent, detailed report to the Senate on any waste and inefficiency that is going on and offering suggestions for improvement. The senate will then instruct the council to follow the recommendations, and potentially pass laws for the re-structuring and re-organization of departments.

    The mid and upper ranks of the civil service would be highly competitive, pressurised, and cutthroat environments, similar to large financial institutions, except with the objective being delivery rather than profit. Salaries would be equal to those in the private sector to attract talent, as well as heavily based on performance, with managers of departments having performed highly getting large bonuses.

    On the other hand, there would be very few employment protections and unions would be banned, allowing for the quick sacking of poorly performing employees. The same type of environment would be present in local authorities.

    Anti-Corruption Agency

    Arctoism believes that corruption should be eradicated from all corners of government, and would empower an Anti-Corruption Commission to have almost unlimited power to investigate any suspicions of corrupt practices. If found guilty, they would be immediately sacked and prosecuted. So pervasive would the presence of the Anti-Corruption Commission be, it would resemble a secret police.

    He believes that parliamentary immunity has outlived its purpose, only serving to shield the political class from prosecution for crimes and corruption based offenses. He would abolish it, meaning that politicians at all levels could be very easily prosecuted if they abuse their power.

    The Anti-Corruption Commission would introduce the following measures and rigorously enforce them.

    • All tax returns in the nation, whether ordinary individuals, corporations, or government officials, must publish their tax returns on a government website, for all to view.
    • All government officials would have their bank statements, medical records, employment history, and everything under their ownership published online.
    • People working in government cannot own profit-making financial assets of any kind, whether that be property, bonds, or shares.
    • Currency would be purely digital, allowing the Anti-Corruption Commission to trace any instances of giving or receiving dirty money.
    • Government officials who report rule breaking and corrupt practices from their colleagues would be financially rewarded.
    • There would be a civil register for all lobbying groups, with their access to politicians heavily restricted.
    • There would be a civil register for companies who receive government contracts. Contracts must be tendered impartially and transparently, must be vertically integrated and not contract out to smaller companies, and must register the progress on the projects every day, with any instances of using government money inefficiently leading to the termination of the contract and them not being paid at all.
    • There would be total freedom of information for everything other than classified documents crucial to national security.

    Dispersal of Power

    Arctoism prefers a Unitary State, though concedes that Federations works better in countries that are either very large, very populous, very ethnically diverse, or all three.

    In Arctoism's ideal nation however, whilst local councils would receive revenue directly from the Land Value Tax, most local council income would be distributed on a per capita and need basis by the central government. The structure and funding of local government would be decided by ordinary legislation.

    The responsibilities of local government would essentially be the same as in Britain today, those including infrastructure, roads, waste collection, sanitation, policing, fire services, parks and recreation, licencing, libraries, social housing, social services, youth services, and others. There would be two main types of local councils, City Councils, which would be unitary authorities responsible for all functions, and County Councils, responsible for towns and rural areas. The County Councils would delegate many of their powers to Borough Councils, who in turn would occasionally have Parish Councils manage small villages in their Borough.

    Local councils would use the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system and be elected all at once for 4 year terms in the middle of a 4 year parliamentary term, meaning citizens go to the polls bi-annually. All City Councils would have a directly elected mayor using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), whilst the council leaders of County Councils and mayors of Borough Councils would be elected by the council itself.

    Foreign Policy

    Arctoism generally takes a non-interventionist position on foreign affairs, though is not a complete isolationist. He has a combination of nationalist and internationalist viewpoints.

    He strongly supports international environmental treaties like the Montreal Protocol and the Paris Agreement, and in the latter case would like to see more enforcement mechanisms.

    He thinks that the United Nations in theory is a force for good, but in its current form is toothless and betrays its idealistic vision with the permanent security council veto of the US, China, Russia, Britain, and France. He however recognizes that none of the permanent members will give up their positions.

    He wants a major reform of the World Health Organization and a new pandemic treaty to insure that a pandemic like COVID19 never happens again.

    He is relatively unconcerned about military competition, believing that in a world with nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction the threat of direct invasion is relatively low, and therefore ideally only wants a slimmed down military concerned with national security, anti-terrorism, and occasionally international peacekeeping missions to prevent ethnic cleansing.

    Despite this stance, he supports NATO and is prepared to spend more on defense for the purposes of the agreement. However, he also thinks that military competition with Russia should be de-escalated for the benefit of both parties, so that less military spending is required. He supports multilateral nuclear disarmament.

    He is generally pacifistic, opposing foreign military intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere. He opposes western backed overthrow of authoritarian regimes and thinks it should not take on the role of global policeman.

    In an ideal world, Arctoism would like to have peaceful, non-adversarial relations with China, being an admirer of how they have lifted themselves out of poverty and desiring international co-operation and world peace.

    However, the coverup of COVID 19, resulting in it becoming a global pandemic, and refusing to allow the international community to investigate its origins, made him change his mind on the Chinese regime. He now sees China as a threat to the stability and prosperity of the world.

    The repression of the Uighurs, the violation of Hong Kong's autonomy, and its extremely aggressive stance on the international stage provide further evidence that the Chinese Communist Party cannot be trusted. However, he is extremely reluctant to do anything that might provoke a global conflict between superpowers, believing that such a war would likely lead to a nuclear exchange and the deaths of millions.

    In the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Arctoism would be in favor of a complete economic embargo on China but not a military response. He does not see defending Taiwan as worth starting a nuclear war.

    Views on National Politics


    Arctofire is British. He feels very strongly that Britain is a nation in its own right, and hence prefers the name 'Britain' to the 'United Kingdom'. He strongly opposes Scottish, Welsh, and English nationalism, and believes Scotland has no right to secede from Britain and end the union. He sees the fact that virtually every other country has a single national football team and Britain is split into England, Scotland, and Wales to be an 'insult' and 'humiliation' to the integrity and unity of the British state. He thinks 100% that Devolution was a mistake and has only bolstered separatism.

    He supports the monarchy, particularly the Queen herself, but thinks its funding should be reduced and hates Harry & Meghan.

    He utterly despises the 'First Past the Post' electoral system used to elect MPs to the House of Commons. He sees it as grossly unfair and undemocratic, robbing millions of their votes being represented in parliament (in 2015 UKIP got 12.7% of the popular vote yet gained only 1 seat) and giving unpopular parties majorities in the case of a divided opposition (such as in the 1983 General Election). He believes that Britain would be a much, much better country if the electoral system was changed, seeing the sharp policy swings of adversarial partisan politics to be destructive and wishing for a more consensus based politics. He designed his electoral system to meet the Good Systems Agreement, but admits it may not be the best and wants to leave it up to the public.

    He is an active supporter of the organization Make Voters Matter, supporting their 'Good Systems Agreement' between parties and individuals where a Citizens Assembly would decide a new system based on 10 criteria. He would preferably like this to be put through without a referendum, as he sees the citizens assembly as providing enough legitimacy, does not see FPTP as legitimate, and is worried by the disheartening experiences of various Canadian provinces, where voters have been misinformed and politically manipulated to vote against PR.

    He also supports the assembly deciding on a replacement for the utterly archaic, embarrassing, and useless institution of the House of Lords which virtually everyone wants gone, to end once and for all the debate about what it should be replaced with (again having designed his upper chamber to be a potential replacement for the Lords).

    He was too young to vote in the 2016 EU Referendum, but believed that the best solution to solve the division was a 'soft-brexit' where Britain would remain in the Customs Union and have close relations with the EU. He blames the failure of this on the People's Vote Campaign, that pressured Labour to reject Theresa May's Brexit compromise and go all out for a second referendum, which ended in Boris Johnson's ascension to the premiership, a Tory landslide in 2019, and an extremely hard Brexit.

    He currently does not support any major political party. His natural affiliation is with Blue Labour or the SDP, but due to their insignificance he finds himself as a 'swing voter'. He would support a Progressive Alliance of Labour, Lib Dems, and Greens for the single issue of electoral and constitutional reform, as it is the only way proportional representation could realistically be implemented, though he heavily disagrees with the bulk of members of those parties on issues like trans rights.

    He has mixed feelings about Boris Johnson. Whilst he admires his One Nation tendencies such as his desire to 'level up' northern England and invest in infrastructure, his boldness in opposing woke interest groups, as well as his optimistic rhetoric, he also believes him to be a corrupt, incompetent moron who used the Covid-19 Pandemic to enrich himself and his friends through PPE and Test & Trace contracts. With the exception of the surprisingly good vaccine rollout, Boris Johnson's government handled the pandemic appallingly, with the Conservatives having become the 'party of corruption'.

    Once and if electoral reform has been realized, Arctoism envisions a new breakaway economically left, socially conservative party rising from a combination of Ex-Red Wall, Blue Collar Conservatives, Blue Labour members, and SDP members, among others. This is the party he would join and support.

    United States

    Arctofire's opinion of the United States is unflattering to say the least.

    He does not hate everything about the USA. For instance, he acknowledges the immense contributions of American engineers, scientists, and inventors to the world. He also admires the innovations of Hollywood, as well as musical styles that form the bedrock of modern popular music internationally. From a political standpoint however, he thinks that the politics of the country are irreparably toxic.

    Arctofire views the two party system as broken and detests the dominant ideologies of both of the main parties. The Republican Party has become a party of unhinged conspiracy theorists, right wing extremists, kakistocrats, and kleptocrats, and whilst he sees the Democrats as the lesser of the two evils, he hates how they have become dominated by pink capitalists and SJWs, being useless at providing any meaningful reforms for the nation's working class.

    Arctofire believes that the American Model represents capitalism at its worst. He abhors the private health insurance system, the lack of concern for the poor, the power that large corporations have to lobby and outright bribe politicians through campaign donations, and the woke character of the American capitalist establishment that uses its economic influence to indoctrinate the public.

    He believes that the US's view of being a Meritocracy is a lie; with that claim of classlessness and the American Dream making it far more elitist, cruel, and unfair than European countries in practice. In contrast to the US, European countries acknowledged the unfairness of the class system and made active attempts to try and remedy it, which is why there is far more social mobility in those countries today.

    He likens the US to an unhappy marriage that always seems constantly on the verge of ending in a divorce, but just before that happens one person in the marriage does something just nice enough for the other that they decide to continue miserably tolerating one another for a little while longer.

    The ultra-individualistic and cut-throat capitalist spirit of the United States constantly seems on the cusp of collapsing, such as during the Civil War, Gilded Age, Great Depression, chaos of the 1960s, and during the Trump administration. If a total discrediting and failure of the American Model were to take place, it may make Americans realize how flawed their country is and give them the push to start fresh and create something much better. However, it always manages to cool the flames just enough each time to continue a slightly modified version of the miserable status quo. He is therefore something of an Accelerationist when it comes to the US.

    He believes the 1776 Constitution is unsuitable for the operation of a functional modern state, and sees the pseudo-religious worship of it to be very damaging for the country as a whole. The electoral college, equal state representation in the senate, and the excessive 3/4 state ratification for amendments create a deeply un-representative and gridlock prone system, playing a part in why America has inferior welfare provision and public services compared to European countries.

    He takes issue with how vague the Bill of Rights is, believing it gives the Supreme Court almost unlimited power to make up policy as it goes along and get involved in politics. He is an opponent of the Living Constitution, believing Roe vs Wade to be an unacceptable interference in politics by the court despite having personal pro-choice views, and wishes for a large degree of judicial restraint from interfering in political decisions. He however recognises that this tradition of judicial interference and 'finding rights' within the constitution is due the extreme difficulty of amendments.

    He believes that the constitution was a product of its time, and worked for a more decentralised federation where the individual states were the primary place of legislation and sense of identity, but does not work today where American identity is much stronger and people look to the federal government to solve problems. He therefore believes that writing a new constitution would be the best course of action, but recognizes that has no chance of happening.

    In addition, the legacy of slavery still haunts the United States, and this can be seen in many elements of American culture and politics.

    The constitution's heavy emphasis on state representation and state's rights, which was required in order to get slave states to agree to the constitution, are a major flaw of the document today. Arctofire also blames a large part of the US's obsession with identity politics and its dysfunctional political discourse on the historical influence of the Antebellum South and the failure of Reconstruction (and resulting Jim Crow), which inevitably led to tendencies like Critical Race Theory becoming legitimized and more credible.



    • Social Democracy - I love your economics, but you're a bit too socially progressive for my taste. Wish you could go back a few decades when you focused less on social issues.
    • Ordo-liberalism - You rebuilt Germany from the ashes to make it one of the most prosperous countries on earth. Based!
    • Nordic Model - Your system has created some of the wealthiest, healthiest, happiest, most prosperous, and most egalitarian nations on earth. All countries should try to emulate your success!
    • Keynesianism - Your economic theories stand the test of time and have proven time and time again to be true. You are capitalism's antidote to boom & bust!
    • Scientocracy - It's important for policies to be backed by data and science in order to maximize effectiveness and minimize waste.
    • Environmentalism - Nature is vital to protect because it is filled with wonder and beauty, harbors intelligent species deserving of protection, and also because it is one of the few things that, if we take care of it, will stay the same long after human civilization changes beyond all recognition.
    • Eco-Conservatism - Conservatism isn't just compatible with environmentalism, but all true conservatives are environmentalists, as preserving nature is preserving the heritage of mankind. It's a shame you're not more popular.
    • Eco-Capitalism - You are our best chance of solving climate change, having developed and reduced costs tremendously for green technologies. You should receive generous state support.
    • Civic Nationalism - National pride and a sense of belonging are good things, but patriotism should be based on statehood not ethnicity.
    • Interculturalism - I believe that different cultures should live in harmony and integrate with one another in the service of common values, not be divided and pit against one another.
    • Democratic Confederalism - I'm not a leftist but you're by far my favorite revolutionary leftist ideology. You're just what the Middle East needs!

    Kinda Friends

    • Capitalism - You are the most successful economic system to have been tried, being responsible for the innovation that enabled the industrial revolution and the modernization of the world. However, you need state regulation to save you from yourself.
    • State Capitalism - You are the best model for developing countries to build up their economies, but past a certain point there is a danger of an economy too dominated by state-enterprises becoming inefficient, bureaucratic, and addicted to debt.
    • Dengism - You were based from an economic development standpoint for China after the chaos of Maoism, but you made idiotic decisions like the One Child Policy and the overpriced housing market. You're also too authoritarian.
    • Liberalism - In your most basic sense, you are everything that makes the west great, such as constitutionalism, civil rights, the rule of law, private property, and equality. However, modern liberalism, particularly in the American sense, is cringe.
    • Social Liberalism - John Stuart Mill, Keynes, and FDR? Based! Modern social liberals like Justin Trudeau? Utter cringe!
    • Feminism - Equality between the sexes is part of what makes the west great, and I strongly support your first and second waves. However in the modern day west you are mostly heavily pro-woke and are constantly encouraging women to see themselves as victims.
    • Technocracy - It's important to have experts advising policymakers, but good political decisions cannot be based on data alone but also need to take morality into account. 'Experts' are also an extremely vague and non-cohesive group, and can be wrong when it comes to politics. The opinions of ordinary people also need to be considered.
    • Meritocracy - It's important that one's position is based on merit and not class or background, but extreme meritocracy can often lead those in power to justify elitism and have disdain for the less educated. We need all types of people to make society work, and be respectful to all social classes.
    • Conservative Socialism - I sympathize a lot with your criticisms of most modern socialists, and am 100% with you in believing that the left has been taken over by SJWs, but maybe you should tone it down a bit with the economic radicalism?
    • Georgism - I support LVT but it isn't sufficient so solve the overpriced housing market, let alone all of society's problems. You are a classic 'one-policy ideology'.
    • Social Libertarianism - You're pretty cool, but I don't think UBI is the most effective form of welfare, as it doesn't take into account the differing needs of individuals and has the potential to be wasted on housing cost increases if that isn't fixed first.
    • Laicism - I respect you in countries like France, and I am non-religious myself, but I don't think you can be universally applied. Co-opting religion can also be an effective means of combatting fundamentalism. Still, I will 100% defend you against Islamo-leftists.
    • Christian Democracy - I like your economics, and also respect the Christian religion in a cultural sense, but I'm personally an agnostic.
    • Distributism - I'm not a Catholic and I think that small local businesses can often be less efficient than larger ones. However, I do agree with your belief that property should be more widely owned, especially the idea that houses should be owned by their occupiers.


    • Conservatism - I generally agree with your view on human nature. In a mainstream modern western context I disagree on your views of economic issues but agree on social issues. But which variant of you are we talking and what's the context? A conservative in Denmark is completely different from a conservative in Saudi Arabia.
    • Fiscal Conservatism - I agree that we shouldn't have unsustainable deficits when the economy is growing, but it's unfair to only cut spending on welfare and not raise taxes on the rich when balancing the budget. Also, fiscal stimulus and deficit spending are necessary in periods of economic recession in order to raise aggregate demand.
    • Socialism - Capitalism isn't perfect and if left unregulated can lead to disgusting levels of inequality. However, your various solutions and variants have failed time and time again.
    • Democratic Socialism - In the US sense, you are simply an ultra-woke radical sounding version of Social Democracy. In the proper sense, despite your admirable creativity, your numerous proposals for a new economic system are all inferior to Social Capitalism.
    • Market Socialism - It's good that you recognize that the Marxist planned economy was a failure, but replacing all companies with workers co-ops is unnecessary and impractical. An economy based purely on co-ops would be less efficient than capitalism and would cause a high degree of unemployment, as Yugoslavia showed.
    • Eco-Socialism - I support your environmentalism, but you alienate non-socialist individuals from supporting climate action by making it perceived as a 'watermelon strategy'. A Green New Deal isn't the only way to solve climate change, pro-market means like carbon taxes can also work.
    • Radical Feminism - I like how you resist gender fluid ideology and emphasize the importance of biological sex, and you're a useful ally in breaking apart the woke coalition. However, your opposition to transgenderism is ultimately rooted in hatred of men.
    • Transhumanism - Whilst I acknowledge that modifications to humanity may be required for specific circumstances like space colonization, you have the potential to be very dangerous, making humanity subservient to tech companies who will control their minds and bodies.

    Not Friends

    • Neoliberalism - Although you've become an overblown left wing buzzword these days, and I think that sometimes state intervention can be harmful, your excessive free market orthodoxy is also very destructive.
    • Third Way - You betrayed working class voters and are literally just Neoliberalism.
    • Bidenism - You are a bland, typical Democrat who is too old to be an effective leader. You have no vision, offer no solutions to America's issues, and were staggeringly incompetent when it came to evacuating Afghanistan. Your only selling point is being the lesser evil compared to Trump.
    • Marxism - You were right about some things like the boom and bust cycle of capitalism, but labor is only one source of value and state intervention solves capitalism's flaws. Your utopian ramblings about a stateless, classless society emerging from the overthrow of capitalism are lame, leading to the deaths of millions in pursuit of this unachievable goal.


    • Anarchism (all forms) - You differentiate between yourselves , but in reality the result of all your variants would be the same: total state breakdown and perpetual civil war. The state is necessary to maintain civilization, and the alternative is a return to a subsistence level lifestyle that is 'nasty, brutish, and short'.
    • American Right-Libertarianism - You and your endless variants are all cringe. Your economic policies are an utter train-wreck and are based on nothing but unbridled worship of the free market. No, the Great Depression was not caused by too much government intervention... If you did some actual economic modelling you'd know that.
    • Pink Capitalism - A toxic influence that is corrupting the west. You need to be smashed.
    • SJW - One of my biggest hates.
    • Landlordism - You are parasites that exploit the people through extortionate rents, property speculation and hoarding. When I say 'capitalism breeds innovation' that does not apply to you.
    • Plutocracy - You give capitalism a bad name. My democracy vouchers will put an end to your political dominance.
    • Kleptocracy - It's good that you're wearing stripes already, because that'll be your required uniform when I throw you all in jail.
    • Trumpism - A combination of the 3 ideologies above, and an authoritarian unhinged lunatic. Your climate denial is evil and you should be behind bars for the insurrection at the Capitol.
    • Marxism-Leninism - Far too authoritarian and the planned economy past a certain point of development is extremely ineffective. However, I will give you credit in regards to education, public health, infrastructure, and women's rights.
    • Stalinism - Typical Asiatic paranoid despotism. Whilst the 5 year plans were good, collectivization and the great purges were needless bloodbaths that had an extremely negative impact on Russian society. Your killing of generals also led you to be unprepared for the Nazi invasion. Among the worst types of Marxism-Leninism.
    • Trotskyism - Despite your egotistical belief that everything would've been different if you'd taken power in the USSR instead of Stalinism, you would have been just as bad, with the added element of deliberately inciting a world war.
    • Maoism - From 1949-1957 you were a positive force in China, but your record from 1957-1976 undid all of that. Your fanatic utopianism and extreme narcissism killed millions, destroyed culture, and robbed China of 20 years of development.
    • Pol Potism - Worst communist ideology ever. Absolutely nothing positive to say. Complete evil.
    • Nazism - You committed mass genocide and caused WWII. You are one of the most un-apologetically evil ideologies to ever exist.

    This list is based on the ideologies only and is not a reflection of the users themselves.


    • File:Eyebrowsism.png Eyebrowsism - I agree with the majority of this, as well as it being an attractive and readable page. World federalism a bit utopian, although European federalism is more achievable.
    • SomeCrusaderism - This is pretty neat and moderate. You're a Christian and I'm an agnostic but in terms of policies we have a lot of similarities.
    • TDRHism - You come from a slightly more rightist angle but we're basically in agreement on almost everything.
    • Aaronism - You're slightly more libertarian than me but we agree on most things. I also used your page as a guide to the syntax on Miraheze, so cheers.

    Kinda Friends

    • - A cool guy on a personal level and you've moderated a lot, but I still find the obsession with banning religion too extreme.
    • Neoclassical Geoliberalism - I find very little objectionable in this ideology on the surface, despite it being lib-right. I do wonder how it work in practice however.
    • Scarletism - You're okay but a bit too regulationist and leftist for my liking. Also, your very frequent use of the death penalty, as well as your use of 're-education camps' for sex workers is pretty barbaric. This is not an 'eye for an eye' but rule through fear.
    • Evolutionary Socialism - This is pretty typical Democratic Socialism, which is okay. The layout of your page is attractive and easy to read so that's a plus.


    Not Friends

    • Neo-Immorxism - Too far left economically, too far right socially, and too authoritarian civilly. This is basically just Ba'athism.


    Add me
    Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

    Recent changes

  • TheElectricBomb • 10 minutes ago
  • TheElectricBomb • 26 minutes ago
  • Scorpi from Mixels • 31 minutes ago
  • Bapiysm • 34 minutes ago
  • Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.