×
Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 6,314 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!



    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki


    Neo-Arctoism is the current self-insert ideology of Arctofire. Whilst it retains similar cultural views to Arctoism (Arcto's previous ideology), it differs by being more free market and libertarian, going from Arctoism's economically Social Democratic stance to a more Social Libertarian and Ordo-Liberal one.

    His view on government intervening in people's lives for the common good turned more negative as the coronavirus pandemic carried on. He now emphasizes limited government, individual rights, and personal responsibility as an alternative to the draconian re-imposition of lockdowns.

    Differences with Arctoism

    Effect of Covid on Views

    With the hysteria around Omicron leading to the re-impositions of Covid restrictions across the world, including for the vaccinated, Arctofire became concerned with unchecked government power trampling over individual rights arbitrarily and indefinitely.

    He feels that the collectivist approach to the pandemic has become negative for society, as it robs people of their most fundamental freedoms and sacrifices everything and everyone to the alter of 'protecting the health service'.

    Whilst initially he saw the vaccines as providing a path back to normality, and is still pro-vaccine and medical innovation in fighting Covid, the re-imposition of lockdown for everyone in Austria and the Netherlands he saw as an indication that governments had grown addicted to power; betraying those that got vaccinated with the promise of normality. He therefore came to the conclusion that vaccination alone cannot return people's freedoms.

    The constant imposition of restrictions whenever a new variant is detected is unsustainable and unjustified in the vast majority of circumstances. He recognizes that Covid is here to stay and that we need to learn to live with the virus; that the only way that the pandemic ends is if the media and governments stop talking about it and let people live their lives.

    The obsession with Covid data as a metric of success he partly believes to be negative extension of the social democratic worldview. The belief in the state regulating individual behaviour in the 'common good', measured by arbitrary statistics, carries the risk of leading to a police state, as such a worldview completely ignores individual human complexities by viewing statistical perfection as the metric of success.

    Though he recognizes that some government intervention and regulation is needed, he opposes 'cradle to the grave' welfare provision. He wants to leave people to succeed or fail in their individual lives without the state excessively interfering.

    Idealism vs Realism

    The previous Arctoism was extremely detailed, listing a bunch of ultra-specific policies which seemed to be geared towards building the ideal fictional country as opposed to a realistic political program; only adapting it to British and American contexts briefly.

    He has come to see such utopian building exercises as counter-productive, as all politics must be viewed in national and historical context and one cannot just 'start again'.

    Hence, this new edition of Arctoism will try to tackle the core political philosophy of Arctofire, focusing on the core principles without providing a super detailed list of policy proposals. He will then create separate national oriented balls containing policies that he thinks would be beneficial for that specific country and how they can be achieved.

    Ten Neo-Arctoist Principles

    1. Individual Liberty & Responsibility:

    Protection of free speech and thought. Opposition to excessive government interference in the lives of individuals. In turn, individuals should be responsible for their own lives and not rely on the government.

    2. Meritocracy:

    All should have equality of opportunity to fulfill their potential, and positions shall be appointed by merit, not ethnic origin, sex, or family background.

    3. Protection Against Accidental Harm:

    The state should assist people in situations outside of their control, such as providing free healthcare for most medical issues and supporting those with disabilities.

    4. An Eye for an Eye:

    Punishments should fit the crime, with an 'eye for an eye' being the guiding, but not absolute, principle behind the justice system.

    5. Fair Competition:

    The state should prevent businesses from uncompetitive practices and having too much influence. A free market economy needs to be kept free.

    6. Inclusive Institutions:

    Governments should be efficient, transparent, and incorrupt, representing the interests of all and not those of corporate lobbyists. All shall be subject to the rule of law, not the law of rulers.

    7. Environmentalism:

    The natural world should be protected, as it is humanity's heritage and should be enjoyed by future generations.

    8. Sex Essentialism:

    Biological sex is the only significant expression of gender, and gender is synonymous with biological sex. Culture and politics should be based according to biological realities.

    9. Classical Conservatism:

    Society should learn from the wisdom of previous generations, changing what needs to be changed whilst preserving that which is good about the past and present.

    10. Pragmatism:

    One should not tribalistically stick to one party or ideology, but seek consensus, compromise, and focus on 'what works' whether that be market or state-based solutions.

    Philosophy

    Arctofire's political philosophy is relatively unchanged from before, being fundamentally of a Classical Conservative variety.

    He believes that humans are fundamentally self-centered and tribe-oriented, and that ideologies based on utopian ideals like Jacobinism and Marxism will always end in tyranny because they impose abstract principles onto society instead of accepting the reality of human nature. He follows in the tradition of Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke, and Roger Scruton.

    He is heavily influenced by Jordan Peterson, and sees his doctrine of individual self improvement having potential to be a mass cultural movement in opposition to both woke and religious fundamentalism; restoring western civilization's confidence and innovative spirit that led it to dominate the world in the 18th and 19th centuries.

    However, he also believes in supporting those who genuinely cannot help themselves, and disagrees with Peterson on environmental issues, which he views as important. He also feels that the philosophy's lack of appeal to young women, who are disproportionately woke, as a major flaw, as the opinions of attractive women highly influence those of men. He is a supporter of Conservative Feminism.

    Economics

    A good economic system will:



    • Facilitate consistent economic growth.
    • Keep unemployment below 5%.
    • Keep inflation below 3%.
    • Keep healthy government accounts.
    • Maximize productivity growth.
    • Keep taxes relatively low but sufficient.
    • Allow business and innovation to flourish.
    • Provide opportunity for all.
    • Make sure those who are moral live in comfort and prosperity.

    He is a Keynesian in that he believes in economic stimulus in times of economic crisis, but doesn't want too much stimulus to cause excessive inflation either, believing Monetarist theories also hold value. He believes in Ordo-Liberalism as a middle ground between the two economic theories.



    He supports balanced budgets in times of economic growth and deficit spending in times of economic recession.

    He wants a simple tax system which saves individuals and businesses paperwork and time in doing tax returns and calculations. He believes that taxes should dis-incentivize wasteful or harmful economic activity whilst incentivizing productive or positive activity. The precise policies will differ depending on the country, but he is an enthusiast of both carbon taxes and a land value tax.

    He is against corporate tax evasion and believes that any company doing business in the country should pay taxes at the

    source of final profit or else lose their right to do business.

    Arctofire supports universal healthcare, with him finding single-payer and multi-payer systems acceptable models. However he supports charging patients for the treatment of illnesses that are self-afflicted, such as:

    • The Unvaccinated (Covid hospitalization)
    • Drug Abusers (including smokers and alcoholics)
    • The Obese

    He supports state benefits for those genuinely in need like the disabled, as well as various contribution/insurance based systems. However, he thinks that those who have the ability to work, but refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.

    He supports the Nordic 'flexicurity' model. This consists of unemployment insurance funds reimbursing workers a high percentage of their wages from previous employment, dependent on having paid into the system, combined with very flexible labour markets with little in-work protections.

    He believes that the flexicurity approach offers the best balance between maximizing employment and giving workers a fair deal, as over-regulated labour markets dis-incentivize hiring by employers, yet a system which does not protect workers at all will be plagued by insecurity and poverty for a large section of the populace.

    He believes that the majority of the economy should be privately owned, and is generally distrustful of the state owning large parts of the economy. However, he concedes that in certain instances public ownership is the best option, particularly in the case of utilities where natural monopoly is inevitable.



    Publicly owned utilities should have as little political influence in their operation as possible. The management should be independent and accountable to it's customers and users, run for their interest as opposed to either partisan interest or private profit. This doesn't have to be state ownership; he also could imagine this role being taken up by private non-profit co-ops.

    He believes that the government should intervene in the housing market to ensure fairness. Seeing property speculation and the housing market as 'capitalism at it's worst', he generally supports a very regulated market consisting of municipal,

    co-operative, and occupier ownership of housing, with private renting limited.

    Whilst Arctofire is not opposed to large corporations, recognizing their advantages in efficiency and scale compared to small businesses, he is against monopoly. Companies must be combatted when engaging in anti-competitive practices and be prevented from owning too large a stake in a market as to make competition impossible.



    He sees big tech companies like Google and Meta Platforms having far too much power over society and using it to rig markets in their favour, similar to how Standard Oil did in the early 20th century. With an increasingly automated and AI focused world, allowing big tech unrivaled dominance could allow them to be absolute controllers of the flow of information, and therefore make them more powerful than governments.

    Following the proposals of the book 'Future Politics' by Jamie Susskind, he believes in a separation of powers between technological functions similar to the separation of power in a liberal democracy between different branches of government.

    He is also heavily supportive of open source platforms like Wikipedia, to him representing the 'internet at its best' and the fulfillment of its optimistic ideals during the turn of the 21st century, which have since largely been betrayed.

    Ultimately, as big tech companies outside of China are almost all American companies, the precise policies to contain their power shall be explained in American Neo-Arctoism.

    Arctofire supports state regulation to:

    • Prevent monopolistic takeover of markets and ensure fair competition.
    • To protect consumer's and worker's rights.
    • To protect the environment.
    • To protect against destructive asset bubbles and speculation.
    • To prevent high housing costs.


    The precise form of these regulations will be explained in nation-specific pages.

    Environment

    Arctofire continues to care deeply about the environment and climate change. He believes far too many conservatives discredit themselves by dismissing the issue, which in turn lets the left claim it as their own to use to pursue other agendas, and sees conserving the Earth's natural beauty for future generations as an intrinsically conservative pursuit.

    He opposes initiatives like the Green New Deal, believing that they are 'watermelon' policies to disguise leftism as environmentalism. However, he also opposes the greenwashing of mainstream conservatives, wanting a radical programme of action similar to the European Green Deal. He strongly supports Eco-Conservatism and Eco-Capitalism, seeing emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes, set at a sufficiently high price to be Paris compatible, as the solution to the challenge.

    Being a Bright Green, he is enthusiastic about technological innovation as the means out of the crisis, strongly supporting electric cars, hydrogen storage, hydrogen fuel, renewable energy, and nuclear energy. He believes that the world will solve climate change if the 'greenest option is the cheapest option' which will happen if the state and the private sector collaborate.

    The precise policy instruments depend on the nation and circumstance.

    Social Issues

    Like Arctoism, Neo-Arctoism places a very strong emphasis on the culture war. He sees woke ideology and cancel culture as a threat to western civilization, needing to be be pushed out of their hegemonic status through a mixture of state regulation and a strong counter-culture in civil society.

    Culture War

    To Arctofire, woke ideology includes:

    • An 'intersectional' approach to analyzing politics, society, and individual behaviour; dividing society into 'privileged' and 'marginalized' groups constantly.
    • Focus on group identity (race, gender, sexuality) at the expense of judgement of people as individuals.
    • Making victimhood seen as a virtue, which can take the form of the creation of new 'marginalized' identities or complaining about how society has mistreated you.
    • A postmodernist rejection of empirical truth, believing that all preconceived truths (particularly before the 1960s) are shaped by a 'cisgender white patriarchy' and those that go against politically correct principles need to be reinterpreted or outright rejected.
    • Believing that alternative viewpoints must be silenced because they make marginalized groups (for which they constantly create out of nothing) feel 'unsafe' (for which they can claim anything they disagree with does.) This results in the intimidation and bullying of critics through 'cancel culture'.
    • Endorsing Critical Race Theory and believing that all politics should be seen through the prism of race; that because of 'white privilege', most white people are 'unconsciously racist' and must apologize simply on account for being white.
    • A rejection of universal liberal values in favour of Multiculturalism and 'diversity', leading to a tolerance of Islamic fundamentalism and other backwards views from other cultures.
    • Post-colonialist reinterpretations and outright fabrications of history to present western civilization as a malign, oppressive force, whilst romanticising non-western cultures.
    • Believing that gender is a fluid concept, divorced from biological sex, and that gender identity/pronouns should be a personal choice as opposed to being based on biology, aspiring to create a society where any mention of biological sex is erased from cultural significance.
    • De-emphasizing the value of the heterosexual nuclear family and the procreation of children, leading to a movement against 'heteronormativity' in favour of a false sense of equality with other sexual orientations.
    • Policing language and terminology in order to make people conform to their ideology subconsciously through 'political correctness'.
    • An active cultural conspiracy to infiltrate corporations and governments through guilt-tripping, emotional blackmail, and boycotts.

    Free Speech vs Cancel Culture

    Arctofire highly values free speech as the foundation of liberal democracy. Whilst he accepts some limits on free speech, such as being against people promoting violence against individuals or promoting terrorism, he thinks that the concept of 'hate speech' is an ideological term to discredit those not agreeing with the woke mainstream, for instance on issues relating to transgenderism. He is utterly disgusted by the way that media has been censored and academics, journalists, actors, and professionals from all walks of life have been hounded out of their jobs for dissenting from woke.

    People should be free to have their own opinions as well having as the 'right to offend', as every opinion is bound to offend somebody and disagreement is part of living in a democracy.

    He believes that a state guarantee of free speech is insufficient to be able to protect the practical right to exercise free speech for most people. Corporations must be stopped from discriminating against employees on the basis of political opinions they disagree with unless there is a valid reason.

    Woke militants make the argument that you 'can have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequence' , but what that is essentially saying is that people with minority opinions, or opinions that are not supported by a corporate establishment, should be censored and cancelled. It is a defence of elitism; for the right to have an opinion to be based on your position in society. With corporations able to police and censor speech at will, ordinary workers with no means to support themselves independently must parrot the views of their bosses.

    Ultimately, good ideas will withstand scrutiny, whilst bad ones will not. If woke people genuinely had confidence in their ideas, they wouldn't try to cancel those who disagreed with them on the basis of them 'spreading hatred'.

    He strongly believes in the principles of free speech laid forth by John Stuart Mill in 'On Liberty'.

    Identity Politics & Intersectionality

    Arctofire believes that splitting people into 'marginalized' and 'privileged' groups ignores the differences between individuals, and is reducing the human person down to that group identity rather than judging them as an autonomous individual.

    Affirmative action ultimately doesn't help the groups woke people claim to want to support in the long term, as it contributes to a sense of 'otherness' and victimhood among people of that group. He believes that to immediately make a judgement about someone based on group identity, even if the purpose is supposedly benign, is discriminatory.

    He instead supports judgement of individuals as individuals, on the basis of their personal merit and morality, as opposed to being judged on an arbitrary characteristic they share with millions of other people and their ability to fulfill a 'diversity quota'. Individualism is an antidote to the hostile Identitarianism of woke ideology.

    On the specific topic of race, he believes that societies should aspire to be 'colorblind' and mention racial differences as little as possible, as doing so simply serves to reinforce them.

    Critical Race Theory is highly racist, as it massively stereotypes and generalizes people of particular ethnicities, and holds all white people in contempt. It goes directly against Martin Luther King's dream that people should be seen 'not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character'.

    Postcolonialism & Multiculturalism

    Arctofire believes that western civilization is the greatest civilization to have ever existed; having created the foundations for the modern world. The freedoms that the woke militants take for granted, and which allow them to mercilessly criticise their society, are as a result of the society they despise.

    Liberal democracy, rule of law, feminism, free-market capitalism, and industrialization originated in the west, improving the lives of billions of people. Post-colonialists however, intent at painting 'European colonialism' as the root of all evil, romanticise non-western cultures, seeing them as somehow more virtuous and progressive, despite them being more backwards on issues they claim to care about, like women's rights. They ignore the positive legacies of colonialism, such as the suppression of Sati (widow burning) in India during the time of the Raj, whilst presenting the negative actions of European colonialism like the Atlantic Slave Trade as a unique evil, despite slavery having existed since the dawn of civilization and it being European Christians who willingly abolished it.

    It is the post-colonialist narrative that demonizes white Christians for the smallest dissent from woke orthodoxy, whilst allowing fundamentalist Muslims to maintain their violent, misogynistic worldview without challenge in the name of Multiculturalism. In unconditional respect for other cultures and hatred of their own, multiculturalists are betraying the universal liberal values they claim to support.

    LGBT & Gender Fluidity

    Arctofire views all non-binary gender identities as a postmodernist victimhood cult deserving of ridicule. With corporate and state support, they are pursuing an agenda to erase biological sex from cultural significance, and using victimhood as a means to control and censor people who dare question them.

    He believes that gender and gender pronouns should be based on biological sex, the foundation of human reproduction and human life, as opposed to gender expression. Whilst he traditionally believed that genuine gender dysphoria sufferers should be able to get gender reassignment surgery, he believes the non-binary cult has 'totally discredited' transgenderism as whole.

    He believes that society has utterly failed in standing up to gender fluidity; that such an idiotic idea which was seen as a joke less than 5 years ago would never have been able to reach the mainstream without the influence of an active conspiracy of hostile academics and lobby groups, who have manipulated the establishment into doing their bidding. All taxpayer funding for this toxic ideology must be pulled immediately, with any institution receiving public money banned from promoting it.

    It is complete validation of the slippery slope argument in regards to LGBT rights, as LGBT activists love to taunt people who oppose their latest agenda with smug proclamations that they are on the 'wrong side of history' based on past victories like gay marriage. This makes him believe that any accommodation of LGBT was a fundamental error of judgement.

    He views it as inevitable that otherkin and MAP identities will be next in the victimhood crusade within the next decade, ideas that seem only as hyperbole today as non-binary did ten years ago, unless there is an active pushback.

    He generally agrees with the policies of Fidesz in Hungary in regards to LGBT rights, and wants to see them replicated elsewhere.

    Science vs Postmodernism

    He believes in the scientific method and empirical truth as opposed to postmodernist subjectivism reinterpreting reality to suit ideological agendas. The twisting of science for ideological ends has been the tool of totalitarians through the 20th century, as George Orwell observed and expressed in Nineteen-Eighty-Four. He describes Gender Fluid Ideology as the 'modern day Lysenkoism' , distorting objective reality to pursue an ideological agenda of victimhood.

    In order to win the culture war, the opposition to woke ideology must not simply oppose it, but offer a convincing and credible alternative worldview that will fill people's need for meaning in their lives.

    So far, the most successful counter-force to woke has been organized religion, like Fundamentalist Islam and the Christian right. However, he does not support increasing the religious influence in society, as Arctofire is deeply secular minded and looks down on superstitions and unverified claims.

    He wants to provide grounded, rational arguments against the woke worldview as opposed to just resorting to lazy 'because the Bible said so' arguments which collapse under the smallest scrutiny. This new cultural movement would be a synthesis of the following.

    For Men & Women

    • The Petersonian philosophy of self-improvement outlined in '12 Rules for Life'.
    • A 'Cultural Christianity' based on the supremacy of Christian ethics.
    • A focus on individual achievement and action above group identity.
    • A desire to advance one's status through wealth.
    • An anti-authoritarian counter-culture based explicitly on rejecting woke.
    • An 'apolitical' rejection of political activism in favor of self-improvement.
    • A civic national pride, or patriotism.

    For Women

    • An Individualist Feminist approach to life. Focus on female empowerment on an individual basis as opposed to believing that women have collective interests (ie, desiring more female representation).
    • A focus on 'sex-based rights'. Women are oppressed on account of their biological sex (trans women aren't women).

    He wishes to bring a lurch of the overton window to the right on cultural issues, similar to how Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan did with economics.



    He admires Reagan's charismatic conservatism, crediting him for keeping the counter-culture temporarily at bay in the 1980s and 1990s without any state coercion.

    A future where woke has been defeated would consist of the following:

    • The power of big tech companies to police speech would be significantly curtailed, with them no longer having the power to censor views they disagree with.
    • Social attitude surveys show that the youngest generation is more socially conservative than their parents on issues relating to cancel culture, political correctness, gender fluidity, and LGBT issues. Corporations would be marketing to this group on the basis of conservative values.
    • Society would return to the apolitical culture of the 1990s.
    • A strong cultural movement in popular culture against the victimhood and identity obsessed narrative of the 2010s, in favour of a Petersonian narrative of self improvement and a celebration of masculinity. Music, movies, and television would reflect these values.
    • Corporations no longer prioritizing the concerns of woke activists with 'equality & diversity' emphasis. It would no longer be seen as profitable to publicly endorse events like gay pride. The ideology of the capitalist class to return to the ethos of earlier eras.
    • The highest positions in the media and Hollywood would be filled with anti-woke individuals. It will once again be conservatives who have cultural and economic power.
    • The traditional, heterosexual family will have its rightful emphasis restored.
    • A large backlash against LGBT ideology that will significantly humble the arrogant proclamations of activists that they had 'won'.
    • It becomes socially acceptable to be homophobic again, with news outlets able to demonize the LGBT community without being forced into a grovelling apology.
    • Concern about representation of minority groups and a focus on absolute equality of outcome for all sections of society would be replaced by colorblind meritocracy.
    • Any public figure who identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns will be treated as a mentally ill narcissist.
    • Celebrities would no longer be outspoken about issues relating to LGBT rights or any kind of liberal activism, to avoid being 'controversial'.

    Fighting woke is an uphill battle, as over the course of 60 years, they have captured the institutions of power through a 'long march through the institutions' and used it to censor anyone who challenges their dogma. This can be seen in government agencies, universities, the media, and big tech, all feeding into one another and acting as mutual reinforcers for cultural hegemony.



    In order to conquer it against the odds, it is necessary genuinely persuade the public, especially young people, that woke ideology is evil, as opposed to resorting to authoritarian means to repress it (which history shows that is likely to backfire in the long term.)

    Arctofire wants active social movements to do the bulk of the work at dislodging woke influence. The state will serve more as an 'enabler', protecting individual free speech against woke corporations and big tech censorship (allowing anti-woke social movements to flourish) and pulling public funding for all organizations and educational establishments endorsing such ideology. It will not resort to authoritarian measures like banning woke NGOs and imprisoning activists, which will only draw public sympathy towards them.

    Despite hating Islamism, he is impressed with how civil society organizations like the Gulen Movement and the Muslim Brotherhood managed to dislodge secularist hegemony in the Muslim world, providing an active example of how conservatives could 'win' the culture war.

    He wants a similar strategy for anti-woke activists in the west; a disciplined network of operatives infiltrating the state and corporations, in turn enabling a decentralized cultural counter-movement across numerous layers of society, except pushing anti-woke libertarian values as opposed to fundamentalist Islam.

    The precise strategy and policies for conquering the woke menace will be elaborated in nation-oriented balls.

    Other Issues

    Arctofire believes that the equality between the sexes is one of the west's greatest achievements. He is a feminist in the sense that he strongly supports men and women having equal rights and opportunities, and believes these principles should be promoted heavily in third world countries where they do not yet exist.



    He thinks women should be able to fulfill their maximum potential as much as men. However, he does not think that absolute equality of all outcomes, in all walks of life, for all men and women, is possible, as men and women are naturally different and what 'equality' means, besides legal equality and equal respect, is debatable.

    An issue he sees with modern feminism is that it will talk of 'women' as a homogenous group with a specific set of interests, when that clearly isn't the case, and also will keep finding new reasons for why women are oppressed as opposed to encouraging women to individually self-improve. Some women use feminism as a means to blame society for all their problems, which he dislikes. He likes Libertarian Feminism due to its focus on individual female empowerment as opposed to blaming the patriarchy.

    The idea of the 'gender pay gap' paints all women as treated unequally compared to men, when in fact, despite some workplaces being genuinely sexist, a large part of it is due to a large portion of women choosing not to go into high paid jobs. Like Jordan Peterson, he believes that some high risk activities, such as being an entrepreneur, are naturally more attuned to a very hard-working, ambitious group of men, and whilst he doesn't deny that 'some' women also have those qualities, it is naturally less, and no amount of educational focus on female empowerment is going to change that.

    He opposes 'gender quotas' on corporate boards, believing them to be inherently discriminatory and patronizing to women in the same way that affirmative action is to black people.

    He thinks that modern society's demonization of motherhood is wrong, and that the heterosexual, traditional family should be promoted. Arctofire is concerned about the collapse of birth rates in the western world, as it would will cause the elderly outnumbering the native working age population, and therefore wants pro-natalist policies from the government to encourage women to have children. This is a more important policy objective of government than closing the gender pay gap.

    He believes that sexual assault and rape should be condemned and punished regardless of one's position, with him supporting certain elements of the #MeToo movement. However, he believes that flirting is okay and is not automatically sexual harassment unless there are clear signals from the woman that it is unwanted and it nevertheless continues.

    Despite hating Radical Feminists for their demonization of men, he sees them as 'valuable allies' against gender fluid ideology.

    Arctofire is personally pro-choice from a

    utilitarian point of view. He views it as more practical to allow safe and legal access to abortion than to restrict it.

    He doesn't believe legal abortion is something that should be imposed on the government by the courts however, and respects those who hold pro-life views.

    Arctofire believes that assisted suicide and euthanasia should be completely legal.



    Not only is it morally wrong to refuse to let people die, but keeping alive people with no quality of life is a burden on state resources.

    Arctofire is pro-pornography and prostitution, believing the government has no right to ban such services.



    He is however in favour of protecting sex workers from abuse and sex-trafficking, balancing that with the right to privacy.

    Criminalizing drugs has been a waste of time, with the widespread use of substances like Marijuana making a mockery of the law.



    Arctofire believes that people should not be prevented from doing drugs, but that they should also face the consequences of their poor choices via paying for treatment of illnesses caused by them, as well as their own rehabilitation. Young people should be made very aware of such consequences around drug use.

    Arctofire believes in the 'eye for an eye' principle generally. However, he also views rehabilitation and public safety important objectives for the legal system.



    He supports capital punishment but only for depraved, sadistic murder where the guilt of the defendant is without question. No other offence apart from murder shall be subject to the death penalty. Life imprisonment without parole would also be an acceptable punishment for such offenses, though some would argue less humane.

    Executions should be painless and private, even if the offense was much worse, as torture is an 'affront to civilization' that the state should never engage in if it is to have the moral high ground.

    Arctofire is personally an agnostic, and believes that the dominant religions are all completely fictional and have no claim to truth.



    However, he acknowledges that the west owes almost its entire set of ethics to the cultural influence of Christianity. The decline of Christian belief has allowed a spiritual void and lack of meaning to take hold of the western world, leading to the dominance of movements like woke attempting to substitute religion.

    He believes that people should be able to practice their religion freely as part of the right to freedom of speech and expression, though the state would discourage fundamentalist belief.

    He is distrustful of Islam due to its dominance by fundamentalists, and even moderate Islam has often been used as facade for the promotion of extremist beliefs through 'dawah' (though he is impressed by how effective this strategy has been and wishes to use similar strategies to counter woke.) Whilst Muslims should be able to practice their faith, the building of a parallel society should be combated.

    Views on Government

    Unlike Arctoism, Neo-Arctoism does not impose one government structure onto all countries. He recognises that different countries have different political traditions that need to be taken into account.

    However, there are still some general principles that he believes in.

    Opposition to First-Past-the-Post

    In Arctofire's opinion, the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system, combined with tight party discipline, is not a legitimate form of democracy. The reasons for this are:

    • It is a form of minority rule. The party that gets large majorities of seats in the legislature almost never gains even a simple majority of the national popular vote.
    • There is no guarantee that even the party with a plurality of the national popular vote wins the most seats (Example: Canada in 2019 and 2021).
    • Most people's votes are not represented in the legislature, and have no impact on the overall result.
    • It supresses political diversity and political choice by entrenching a two party system, punishing any new party which tries to bring fresh ideas into politics with the 'spoiler effect'.
    • Two party systems promote tribalism and adversarial politics as opposed to pragmatism and compromise, which can lead to civil breakdown.
    • It gives power to party bosses to heavily vet candidates within the two main parties, giving voters little real choice.

    For these reasons, he absolutely rejects FPTP as a legitimate electoral system. The issue of electoral reform is a question of fundamental democratic rights, and he opposes referendums on getting rid of FPTP, which can be undermined by a misinformed public being used as pawns in partisan power-games, like they have been in various Canadian provinces.

    The abolition of FPTP and its replacement with a fairer electoral system should be done through a simple passage of a law, with the precise system being decided through a deliberative process by a citizens assembly, like in British Columbia in 2005 (though without the 'sabotagal' referendum).

    He strongly prefers proportional representation, though he sees some merit in other majoritarian systems like the 'Two-Round System' and 'Ranked Choice Voting' if the goal is to promote single party government like the advocates of FPTP cherish (though he thinks is negative), because they at least require a majority of the country to give approval to the winner. In contrast, FPTP fails even as a majoritarian system, where who wins the election is almost arbitrary to national support.

    Regardless of the exact electoral system or national circumstance, Arctofire is strongly in favor of non-partisan, independent electoral watchdogs, to ensure elections are free and fair.

    Political Parties

    Whilst Arctofire acknowledges that the development of disagreements and factions within politics is inevitable, he is very distrustful of political parties as organized bureaucracies. He believes they promote tribalism, adversarial politics, groupthink, a suppression of originality and new ideas on the part of representatives, and do not represent local concerns.

    He dislikes electoral systems that give a large degree of power to parties through 'closed lists' and party systems that have 'strong party discipline' (he considers Canadian politics to be the 'worst of all worlds' in relation to FPTP combined with strong party discipline.)

    He instead favors a system where individual representatives can freely vote how they and their local voters wish, and can individually associate themselves into factions as opposed to being beholden to party discipline. The electoral system would not discriminate against independent politicians. In this system, parties would resemble 'groups' or 'caucuses' of politicians united over a certain set of issues.

    Whilst party affiliation would still be present on ballot papers, they would be more loose ideological markers rather than organizational allegiance, with anybody able to run under a party banner and compete with other party candidates through open primaries or ranked choice voting. He therefore favors a more American internal party structure as opposed to a more cohesive European or Canadian structure.

    Overview

    A subscriber to the theory of development outlined in the book 'Why Nation's Fail', Arctofire is a staunch believer in 'inclusive institutions'. Political institutions are inclusive if they represent the interests of a large section of society and are neutral arbiters around economic interests, as opposed to 'extractivist institutions' where the institutions of the state are geared towards the enrichment of one specific group.

    Even between developed countries, one can clearly see the difference between countries who's politics are more inclusive or more exclusive. Arctofire sees American politics as being relatively exclusive, with policies being dictated by corporate lobbyists who bribe politicians through campaign donations to do their bidding. This is the fundamental reason why the US does not have universal healthcare, an analysis that will be expanded upon in American Neo-Arctoism.

    Arctofire is a Radical Centrist, which he sees not simply as a populist string together of different policies from various ideologies (despite it being used in that fashion by many politicians) but as a consistent political approach, believing that institutional reform to reduce the power of special interest groups is more important than a dogmatic focus between left and right. Whilst left wing vs right wing divisions do exist, they are fundamentally not as important as the divide between the interests of ordinary people and a collusion of government and big business interests.

    These ideas Arctofire believes should be used across the world, to truly seperate governments from corporate lobbyists, which in turn can create a genuine free-market capitalism as opposed to 'crony capitalism'.

    Democracy Vouchers

    Supporters of party discipline cite the US's weak party system as part of what enables special interests to have such a large amount of power, pointing out that countries like Germany also have no campaign finance restrictions and yet do not have the same issue, as it is harder to bribe a whole party than one individual.

    Arctofire acknowledges this, but does not believe tightening party discipline to be the solution, as it comes with other drawbacks. Instead, he proposes a radical system of 'democracy vouchers', where all donations to political campaigns have to be through a voucher scheme which enables every voter to have an equal stake in funding elections. This idea was advocated by Andrew Yang with his 'democracy dollars' proposal.

    Arctofire's version of the voucher system would work as follows:

    • At the start of each election season, every voter would be given a code for a voucher that they can redeem through a website managed by the electoral commission. This website would also have information about each of the local candidates and their positions. The voucher's amount will vary depending on circumstance, but will typically be around $5.
    • Every candidate has a threshold where they can no longer gain any more vouchers. Once every local candidate has met the funding threshold, they can no longer get anymore and all remaining vouchers would be declared invalid. This is to ensure a competitive race.
    • All candidates would be allocated equal airspace on television, radio, and social media for free.
    • All campaign spending must be through the vouchers, with every expenditure recorded by the campaign. This includes third party campaigns, which are for the most part banned as they are funded outside of the voucher scheme.

    Transparency

    Arctofire believes that all financial and tax information from politicians should be made freely available to the public. There should be an independent 'anti-corruption agency' which investigates corrupt practices in government and holds them to account.

    Conflicts of Interest

    Politicians nor their immediate family members should be able to serve on corporate boards or own any stocks or shares whilst serving in office.

    Lobbying Restrictions

    Even though the problem is particularly bad in the United States, all existing liberal democracies still allow far too much lobbyist influence over policymaking. This enables the rich to have a disproportionate influence over policy. To maximize the inclusivity of institutions, there must be harsher restrictions on lobbying. He believes that:

    • All lobbying organizations must be registered with the authorities, and be forbidden from using covert methods to gain influence over elected officials. Interest groups may state their case to politicians, but only in formal, allotted time.
    • Politicians should be forbidden from seeking employment in lobbying after they leave office.
    • The funding of political parties outside election time should be strictly limited to individual donations of a size not exceeding that which an ordinary citizen can afford.

    The never ending cycle of Covid restrictions proved to Arctofire the importance of civil liberties, such as the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' , all of which have been seriously violated during the pandemic.



    It is worth remembering that 'emergency powers' for the purposes of public safety have historically been used for the permanent suspension of freedoms by authoritarian regimes (such as the 'Reichstag Fire Decree' in Weimar Germany). The state cannot be trusted to regulate its own behaviour and act in a just fashion. People must always be skeptical of government and hold it to account, with 'eternal vigilance being the price of liberty.'

    With initial declarations by governments like 'three weeks to flatten the curve' evolving into multiple-month-long lockdowns as draconian restrictions became normalized, Arctofire believes it is very important for governments to clearly define what the suspension of such liberties hopes to achieve, and set a clear timetable for when people's freedoms will be restored.

    Whilst he concedes that mild restrictions may have been justified at the beginning of the pandemic before the vaccines were developed, he sees all those imposed since the discovery of Omicron on vaccinated populations to be obscene violations of liberty.

    Arctofire believes that constitutions have two roles: an instruction manual for the workings of government, and to limit government power.



    He opposes constitutions that operate like political manifestos , emphasising 'positive rights', imposing one ideology onto the state, and requiring the government to implement specific policies in a rigid fashion, regardless of political or economic circumstance.

    Whilst Arctofire supports positive rights being fulfilled, he believes that this is the job of the legislature and politics, not the courts and the legal system.

    He is against Kritarchy, where courts 'find rights' within the constitution which it's authors clearly didn't intend for and impose specific policies on governments.

    The judiciary should be able to prevent government actors from performing actions or passing laws that directly violate the constitution, but should not be able to declare something a right and force elected officials to implement new policies. He wants constitutions to clearly specify that the law is to be interpreted as it was intended to be.

    To prevent against politicization of the judiciary, Arctofire believes that all justices should be selected by an independent Judicial Council, and Supreme/Constitutional Court nominations from this council should require an at least two-thirds majority confirmation by the legislature.

    Relationships

    Friends

    • Radical Centrism - You recognize that the solution to solving political issues isn't a dogmatic adherence to left or right, but making institutions more inclusive and implementing pragmatic policies. Based!
    • Meritocracy - People who work hard should be able to succeed, and people should be judged on their individual merits rather than group identity.
    • Eco-Capitalism - Private sector innovation is how green-tech comes into being.
    • Social Libertarianism - Preserving individual liberty? Based. Also opposing the ultra-rich and championing the common folk? Ultra based.
    • Piratism - Open source software and internet freedom is great. You are a counter to the tyranny of big-tech monopolies.
    • Ordo-Liberalism - You rebuilt Germany from the ashes of WW2. The perfect economic system!
    • National Liberalism - I agree that our fight against woke values should not lead us to abandon essential liberal values.
    • National Conservatism - I agree that the state should actively intervene to fight woke culture, whilst still not going completely authoritarian.
    • Social Capitalism - Completely agree with you. Capitalism is great but needs regulation and welfare to make sure it benefits everyone and doesn't collapse or consolidate into monopoly.
    • Interculturalism - An interchange and sharing of cultures does not have to mean segregation and division. We can merge the best aspects of each culture to create a 'super culture'!
    • Civic Nationalism - Racism and ultra-nationalism is cringe, but patriotism is based.

    Kinda Friends

    • Capitalism - You're the best economic system to have been tried, but sometimes you can get too unequal and unstable. You need regulation.
    • Keynesianism- We need to raise aggregate demand in times of recession, but I don't think paying people to dig holes and refill them is the most efficient way. We also need to be careful about high inflation.
    • Monetarism - The central bank should be independent and inflation should be controlled, but sometimes state investment can be good.
    • Fiscal Conservatism - It's important not to let debt get too high, but sometimes government borrowing is needed to protect the economy and raise aggregate demand.
    • Nordic Model - You've created the happiest and most prosperous nations on earth, but you're a bit too woke sometimes.
    • Social Democracy - Still like you quite a bit, but you sometimes create a bit too much of a 'nanny state'. I also don't think that people who are lazy should be able to live off benefits, and sometimes poverty is their own fault.
    • Paternalistic Conservatism - Economic centre-left conservatism is based, but I'm not sure I like the idea of state 'paternalism'. People should be left alone and free to do what they like without the state acting on their behalf constantly.
    • Christian Democracy - I like your approach to the economy, and Christianity is a core part of western civilization, but I don't literally believe in it.
    • Distributism - I'm not a conservative catholic and sometimes local and small-scale production is less efficient than national and large-scale, but I do like your advocation of widespread property ownership, particularly housing.
    • Civil Libertarianism - I support civil liberties, as well as the government not interfering in people's lives too much. However, you're a bit too pro-LGBT.
    • Conservative Feminism - I agree with gender equality and anti-woke, but I think that abortion, prostitution, and pornography should be allowed.
    • Environmentalism - We must protect our beautiful earth for future generations, but being anti-nuclear and anti-GMO is destructive to that cause!
    • Alt-Lite - Anti-SJW is based. However, climate change denial and extreme misogyny is cringe.

    Neutral

    • Radical Feminism - Not all men are bad! And women being sexy is NOT sexist! However, you are valuable allies against the gender fluid cult.
    • Neoliberalism - Sometimes excessive state regulation is bad, but market-fundamentalism and total free trade is also bad.
    • Right-Libertarianism - Anti-big government is based. However, leaving everything to the free market would just lead to domination by big corporations instead, which are even less accountable.
    • Market Socialism - The least cringe form of socialism. However, an economy of only co-ops would create high unemployment, as Yugoslavia showed.
    • Conservative Socialism - I appreciate your commitment to old-school socialism, but the left has been irreversibly lost to the SJWs. It is time to join the right!
    • State Capitalism - You are good for developing countries, and more company profits going to the taxpayer is good, but sometimes I wonder if the state owning too much of the economy could make it too dominant and hostile to freedom.
    • Technocracy - Yes, we should listen to scientific experts, but we must also be wary that they are not free of ideological biases! Technocrats should inform political decisions, but not believe they alone know what is in the best interest.
    • Transhumanism - Whilst some of your ideas have merit, I worry about digital augmentation giving big tech the power to police our minds and thoughts if it is not heavily regulated.

    Not Friends

    • Anarchism - Life without the state is 'nasty, brutish' and short', with which there would be constant civil war and chaos. All of your variants are ultimately the same in this regard.
    • State Atheism - I am not religious myself, but the government has no right to ban people from practicing religion. Freedom of speech and expression is vital in a free society, and that extends to religion.
    • Marxism - Your view of history was extremely simplistic and single-minded, and your naive utopianism led to some of the greatest horrors of the 20th century.
    • Socialism - Literally every single variant of you has been tried and failed.
    • Democratic Socialism - Socialism is an inferior economic system, so you'd either be voted out of power or cease to be democratic.
    • Eco-Socialism - Your attaching of environmentalism to leftism just alienates people from other political persuasions from engaging with the issue.
    • Deep Ecology - No, we do not have to return to pre-industrial times and give up everything we have in order to save the planet.
    • Green Liberalism - You are responsible for Green Parties becoming Pink Parties. LGBT and environmentalism are NOT the same thing.
    • Liberal Conservatism - A CINO (Conservative in Name Only) willing to sell out every conservative principle if it means getting slightly more votes.
    • LGBT Conservatism - Hostile infiltrators in the conservative movement. No, gender fluidity and conservatism are not compatible, and any conservative movement that welcomes such views has completely betrayed conservatism.
    • Neoconservatism - Responsible for wasteful foreign wars, costing billions, leading to the loss of countless lives, and increasing distrust in government. It is not our job to 'spread democracy'!
    • Particracy - I will not sacrifice my principles to appease a party whip! My views and thoughts are my own, and I will vote how I wish and speak my mind!
    • Islamic Democracy - Just an Islamist tactic to deceive people and take control of the state apparatus, to gradually impose hard-line Islamism.
    • Multiculturalism - Promotes separation and division. Common civic values between ethnicities are necessary for a functioning society!
    • Absolute Monarchism - Unaccountable power is never good. However, occasionally you have been a progressive force.

    Enemies

    • SJW - My nemesis.
    • Gender Fluidity - A dangerous, postmodernist cult that young people in the west are being indoctrinated by.
    • Gender Accelerationism - How about we abolish gender, and so we can replace it entirely with biological sex, and then get rid of trannies?
    • Postcolonialism Western civilization is the greatest civilization to have ever existed. You're just jealous.
    • Islamism - A book written in the Middle Ages should not be the answer to modern day problems. You are ultra-authoritarian and seek to rob people of the joys of life, so fuck you!
    • Plutocracy - Government should work in the interests of everyone, not just the rich.
    • Kleptocracy - Corruption shall be extinguished from government!
    • Covidism - Covid is never going away. Subjecting people to constant lockdowns when the majority are vaccinated is a complete violation of their liberty.
    • Trotskyism - You were just as bad as Stalin, just bitter that you lost power to him.
    • Stalinism - A paranoid, despotic mass murderer who's deal with the Nazi's allowed WW2 to happen.
    • Maoism - The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution undo any good that you did 100 times over.
    • Juche - Totalitarian, ethno-nationalist, semi-feudal, absolute monarchism.
    • Nazism - Genocidal maniacs who always give the woke fanatics someone to strawman their opponents as being similar to.

    Friends

  • TDRHism - Almost identical to me.
    • SomeCrusaderism - Pretty similar to me except more Christian Conservative.
    • Beryism - A bit more socially progressive and economically libertarian than myself but still very based.
    • Dumnorixism - Mostly very based, except returning to the gold standard would be a disaster.

    Kinda Friends

    • Böhmism - Similar to me though more moderate, however, gender fluidity should not be 'respected on the same level as religion'.
    • Civic Liberalism - A more moderate version of myself, though he doesn't like me very much.
    • Owfism - Really detailed page and quite interesting to read, though INCREDIBLY specific. The ideology is to my left, especially on cultural issues, but I guess I appreciate the effort you put in.
    • Template:NameChirotesla - I really like the presentation, design, and information on your page, and I can see you took a lot of inspiration from my own. The ideology itself though is a little bit too leftist for my taste.
    • Evolutionary Socialism - Beautiful and fantastic page presentation and detail, and I like your cultural moderation, though I still do not think Market Socialism is feasible. Overall though not too bad for a socialist.
    • Yori Model - Same as above, though also too progressive.

    Neutral

    • Glencoeism - You wouldn't shut up about me adding you, so here it is. Your ideology is oddly specific and page kinda weirdly structured. It's basically just Market Socialism, for which I've already given my opinion.
    • Pantheonism - Your page is kind of messy and convoluted. The ideology itself? It's okay, bit too leftist for me, but generally fine.
    • Goreanism - Of course a united world government and total peace would be nice, but you don't offer any real solutions of how such a utopian vision could be achieved. Also, Liquid Democracy seems kinda weird and an untried system; I don't think it could work anywhere outside of the local level. However, your economics are mostly good.
    • Braun Spencer Thought - You keep on insisting we're complete opposites, but that's not 'quite' true. We both agree that monopolies and oligopolies like big tech are a cancer on society and the state needs to reign them in, however you are more radical, as you are against all large corporations as a matter of principle whilst I don't mind large corporations if they do not abuse their markets (like big tech companies do) and help innovate and lower prices. On social and cultural issues though, we are almost complete opposites.

    Not Friends

    • Neo-Immorxism - Religiously conservative, socialist, authoritarian, and post-colonialist is all cringe.

    Enemies

    Comments

    •  Xirlan Thought - Add me
    • Applethesky2021 - Add me?
    • - Could you add me to your self-insert relations?
    • Pantheonism - May you add me?
      • Pantheonism - Btw. which parts of my Ideology do you think are too left-wing?
    • Owfism - Add me to relations?
    • - I will add all of you. Please add me back.
    • Yoda8soup - Add me?
    • - Yes if you add me back.
    • Atronism - Could you add me?
    • - Yes if you add me back.
    • Omega1065 - You seem nice. Wanna add me?
    • Tiberius Thought - Opinion of the Third Way? It has very similar economics to ordo-liberalism.

    Recent changes

  • DrGreen • 2 minutes ago
  • Dfa4425 • 3 minutes ago
  • MeinzapMarkez • 9 minutes ago
  • MeinzapMarkez • 10 minutes ago