Embedded Files
[links to the three state systems, including democracy]
There is no "left", "right", "liberals", "conservatives" or "progressives".
There's just differently coloured parasites. They have no strategy, unless it's their marketing strategy using buzzwords like "tackle" or "diversity" or "change".
They have no ideology, besides their personal quest for power and money.
They have no emotion, besides trepidation, jealousy and contempt.
To build an ideology, you must first imagine a stateless society — a blank slate in which nobody knows each other and nobody has roles to play or mechanisms by which they govern or underlying shared goals or rules.
Imagine a world without humans, and humans have just spawned in like a videogame, and they've asked you to design social and decision-making systems that they will keep running well after you are gone.
A result of your system should be that new systems are likely created, which the serve fundamental goal of your system.
Whatever you invent is then an ideology.
If you cannot invent an ideology, you cannot be a meaningful political leader, because you could never invent the world anew.
Assume that without your enlightened ideology, a worse ideology will instead take hold. Assume that people will always organise themselves, and it's your job to determine the supreme organisation that should overrule other organisations.
This ideology has nothing to do with you. So, you can't take "vote x person" e.g. "Vote Brian Smith" seriously, because then it's about them and not about the people.
Imagine that you will not live in the imagined world with brand new people which you will provide an ideology, and you will have no communication with them after providing your ideology document. This makes it clear the difference between you and your ideology which is unique to you. Anybody can have their own unique and concrete ideology. Anybody can take your written ideology and edit it.
An ideology is not when you take existing systems and change them.
An ideology is when you invent your own system or set of systems which are designed to interact and shape the non-mechanical society underneath them, "mechanical society" meaning when there are rules and schedules and sequences and so on, and non-mechanical meaning spontaneous and unplanned behaviour and so on.
YOU have to invent YOUR rules, schedules, sequences for people to use and implement and be a part of. YOUR PROGRAM.
If you do not do that, you are not a real political leader.
You can compare an ideology to an organism's genetics. It has to be code which is self-replicating. Of course, there is a difference between an organism's code and their bodily presence. Because the code is self-sustaining, so is the society which is built from that code. Someone could take your code and edit it, and you can't know for sure how society would develop differently under the remix.
////
Politics is a cancer on this Earth. For all that politics stirs division, and for all that politicians "fight" (codeword for being extremely lazy) for us, they do nothing in the way of inventing social systems - imagining how things would be in a utopia, and what systems would produce utopia.
Wherever there is not utopia, this can and should be blamed on the state's social and leadership systems not being intelligently designed.
You could make a utopia if you found the right people to politically empower, learned from smart and good people past and present, brought together scientists of various kinds and questioned everything about your state, to redesign it to make it better - like a process of continual improvement. But the politicians, they don’t do that. Why don’t they build civilisation? That would be fun. Instead, they just fool around.
If you want to have social systems, such as an education system, that is up-to-date with the technological systems that surround us, you should probably seriously involve people at the forefront of the creation of that tech. You need intelligent design all-around - be dynamic. Be innovative! Be enterprising! "More teachers" or "more soldiers" is not that. You are not two years old! Learn from the free market!
Just as the market keeps finding new ways to get customers, the state should keep finding new ways to serve the people. They don't bother.
The only thing that has any serious political substance is social systems. A leader is just a person. A leader's vague notions are just personality, although you could make systems out of them. A leader's orders are just one-off. What really makes things happen is systems that order and empower many, many people, and keep running indefinitely. I have designed three state systems, which, for basic understanding, you can call:
democracy 2, school 2 and military 2
"democracy 2" is described below. "school 2" is described in the Education page. "military 2" is described in the Military page.
I've also invented a personal system which you can consider religion 2 - key techniques of which are on this page, with key ideas on this page.
There needs to be a group of people tasked with directing public funds, public assets and having or seeking ideas for public systems, and deciding what to implement, with an internal voting system — a government. The government should be smart, good, and representative of the people. It should not be populated by people who sought political power. It should be populated by people merely chosen by the people for their merit.
Here’s how that should work:
Every four years, every citizen aged 7+ is randomly allocated (not mandatory, but incentivised) to a local voting group of 10 people. You’ll be given a time and place to attend a location, ideally less than a kilometre from home, along with 9 other randomly picked people. The prison population is not excluded. You can get to know these people, including official information on them. Once that’s done, you’ll go to a booth and allocate 9 points to the group. You could, for example, give 3 points to person A, 4 points to person B, and 2 points to person C. Or, all 9 points to the same person. Or, 1 point to each person. That’s phase 1 voting. You can be voted for without even attending or voting.
Phase 1 will produce the ‘winners’ of each group - those who got the most points. Some winners will have more points than others. If the population was 60 million, then there would be about 5.5 million phase 1 winners. If this was too expensive an operation, then only, for example, 1% of the population would be involved in this, but it would result in a worse government. The maximum points a phase 1 winner could get is 81. So, if everyone in your group gave all their points to you, you’d get 81 points. Each voter meet-up should be supervised so that you’re not just pressuring others to vote for you. The average points someone will get is 9.
In phase 2, the phase 1 winners are put into groups of 10 and the process happens again.
In phase 3, the phase 2 winners are put into groups of 10 and the process happens again.
The points you're given in each phase should be multiplied by the phase number. This means that getting 50 points in phase 7 gets you (50 multiplied by 7) 350 points.
Your final score determines your voting power in government. That is the 'weight' of your say.
Once the voting phases have whittled down to a final group and final winner, the voting operation (election) is over. It is possible that the final winner ends up with less voting power than others who did not win all phases.
Technically, anyone could participate in government votes, by using their voting power which is their score that they got in the previous points-allocation operation (election). We can use apps for digital voting. Let’s say, someone has an idea for the nation. In order for that idea to become law, at least 100 people in the top 5% of voting power would have to support it, and at least 20% of the total voting power would have to be used in favour of it. Everyone in the top 5% of voting power would be notified of the idea, and have the opportunity to vote against it. If more than a third of the voting power used for or against an idea is used against it, then it fails.
For example, 7254 points are put in favour of an idea vs 4763 against. In this case, the idea fails.
There can be a secondary points system designed to influence how people vote, since it is likely that popular people are more likely to be supported, but this might not be reflected in the groups. Therefore, there will be a website always up where you can anonymously give or remove trust points from anyone. It's like you have 100 trust points to give/take, and you can use that to remove/add trust points from anyone. The only time you can see how many trust points someone has is if you have the opportunity to give them vote points. So, in addition to being facilitated to meet the people in your vote group and seeing official info on them like their verified employment and criminal background, you can also see their trust score.
The reason you don't just have a voting system where you can vote for anyone, and then political power is given that way, is because your government would end up being all celebrities, and you might miss a lot of geniuses that way. There would also be the issue of you being pressured to, for example, vote for your boss for a pay increase. There isn't enough wisdom of the crowd that way. There might also be the issue of the system being hacked, if the voting-in is all digital. When you log-in to the trust score website, your previous allocation is not shown. You can simply make a new allocation. Therefore, even if someone got your password and logged in to your account, at least they cannot see if you trust them or not, or who you trust.
Before there is a new election, the public should be given the opportunity to vote on if they think the government made things better or worse. If they think the government made things better, then those in government (those with the most voting power) should be financially rewarded in accordance with their voting power and the degree to which the public thinks they made things better. If the public thinks the government made things worse, then they should be punished by time in prison – with those with the most voting power spending the longest time in prison – up to a year — or longer if the public thinks they made things a lot worse. This will deter conning and incentivise actual work.
It'll be multiple choice:
I think they made things a lot better
I think they made things better
I'm not sure / I think things aren't better or worse
I think they made things worse
I think they made things a lot worse
By the way, school should exist as an actual public service to children. Currently, it exists as service to the state, which is mainly why everything besides free market technology is getting worse. Ties on children. Ties on some dressed-up soldiers. Ties on politicians. It is a spectre of faux professionalism. I’d trust a bunch of mute autists and paranoid schizophrenics to be my policy advisors more than I would current politicians. Just being able to say understandable things doesn’t mean you have anything insightful to say. Einstein said "the only thing that interferes with my learning is my education" but of course that's of no concern to a politician. In the head of a politician, what they think is more important than what greats and geniuses think.
Q: What if there is a tie within a group?
A: Then, whoever has the most points is the winner. For example, the phase 1 winners will have various scores. If there is a tie in a phase 2 group, the win goes to whoever gained the most points in phase 1. If the winners’ points are equal (most likely in phase 1 when everyone has a score of 0), then the group is asked to repeat the process until there is no tie.
Q: What if everyone in a phase one group will only vote for themselves?
A: You can't vote for yourself.
Q: What if a phase one group ties anyways?
A: I wrote "then the group is asked to repeat the process until there is no tie."
Q: What if no amount of repeats can break the tie
A: Ok, if there is no winner after four repeats, then each member of the group (excluding the tied winners, assuming there are tied winners) is given x number of points to distribute among those who tied - with x being the number of tied winners. The one with the most points then wins. If there is still a tie, that process is repeated. If there is still a tie after the repeat, a winner is randomly selected from among those who tied.
If, after the fourth repeat as above, the ten members all have 9 points and are therefore equally tied, then a winner is randomly selected.
Someone's response:
ok so
1) Your detailed little voting group still just ends as a popularity contest. Except now, you get massive variation due to groups of just 10 people.
2) It's local, so you will know some people, personally. Votes can be traded, bought.
3) Non-politicians can give loads of voting power onto someone they agree with generally.
4) With such small groups, good chance theres no one you agree with. Now, by luck, you have no vote
5) Most people dont wanna become politicians or go through this effort, so few would show. Those that do, would be ones who want political power, what you previously wanted to prevent
6) Why 16+? why do prisoners get to vote?
7) having 10 people meet up in person for prob at least an hour, plus getting there, plus making time... 3 times. Gl getting people to do that
8) With government supervisors every time. With enough participation this would be millions of meetings of government pay employees... ridiculously expensive. And not enough employees
9) Everyone would have to be constantly voting on shit. 5% of the population? Are you delusional? Thats millions of people
10) With the weird direct-ish democracy, the majority would completely suppress any minority wish. Additionally, people will reject things they have no clue over, and the majority can force through any idea they like
11) With the right location, smoothtalk and luck, a person can become the most powerful influence in the country... by convincing 27 people.
Your system would accomplish nothing with "expertise" or "competence" even less so than now. Have you studied politics? How well do you know the political systems of varying countries?
Answer:
1) thats not a problem. you get representation, that's what you get
2) no they can't be traded/bought because it's still random people and you don't know who the group will be until you go to the location
3) wtf? they can only vote for ideas. this is not a bad thing
4) nobody has to agree with you. they can just vote for you because they like you. "the vote" is not inherently meaningful. if nobody likes you, that's fine
5) I'm trying to end the political class. It's not effort. It's not much harder than voting, which many people do. Also, being a politician doesn't have to be a full time job - politicians have generally been useless anyway
6) because aged 16 is somewhat mature. You just need some age limit, I guess. 18 is already too old because you might already go fight and die aged 17. Prisoners vote because law is subjective and they might be wrongly imprisoned
7) I think 15 minutes is enough. You can get people to do a lot of things. Think of human history. People already get to poll stations just fine.
8) One supervisor can supervise multiple meetings. We already have poll station workers and volunteers and vote counters. It's doable. You're just super critical.
9) Not "everyone" would have to constantly vote. Have you seen twitter polls? You can use apps. Open your mind a little. If people can spend hours on TikTok, they can spend a few minutes daily voting for and against various things.
10) The system is going to be less oppressive and more representative than what currently exists. It's fine.
11) I don't know where you got that number from. Anyway. If they convince 27 people voted-in by the people, that's fine.
There is nothing worse in this world than "studying politics". For someone to "study politics" and then go into politics is like a snake eating itself.
Politics does not make the world go around. Social systems do. And there is nothing special about someone who studied politics that makes them good at designing and directing social systems.
My system would result in the governors being chosen for their merit, including that of finding competent people to advise them.
Have you seen that everything is going DOWN because of the political class. They are dead weight.
Response:
1) the variety of winning 9 people is ridiculous. its not at all representation. What if you land with people where you just dont agree with them? Boom, your vote is gone
2) Random people from your neighborhood. Which you may well know. And you can bribe with your votes for example. No one will ever vote less than 10 on one person, whoever they dislike least.
3) claims, very unrealistic ones.
4) "the vote is not inherently meaningful" that says a lot about your system, lol
5) of course its much harder than voting. Voting takes one visit one ballet, for a person whose ideology has been laid out, one of 5 people or so, associated with a party. This takes repeated meetups grouped with strangers at the same time, supervised, with constant submissions and voting for ideas some random dude had
6) "somewhat", these people are in middle school bro
7) 15 minutes you can barely say hi whats your name. Everyone gets 1 minute to explain their worldview and stance on different issues?
8) Of course im super critical, its a debate server, and youre suggesting a complete revamp of every democracy that exists with ideas no one has seen
9) "open your mind a little" yeah, not how that works
10) So you claim. How this practically would work though...
Answer:
it's a lot better than the current system.
1) your vote will be more meaningful, because, by the way, it is meaningful that you don't give points to people you don't agree with. also, agree about what? ideological stuff is silly. simply vote for who you like and they will figure things out. You cannot boil politics down to just a few stupid parties led by stupid people.
2) I just said it would be supervised
3) you’re the one making claims. You’re misunderstanding the voting power concept
4) no it says a lot about the current system, because you’re voting for people who believe in themselves too much
5) their ideology being laid out isn’t meaningful when they’re stupid people who fundamentally change nothing anyway. You’re not (just) voting for ideas. You’re voting for who you trust and like. You’re viewing politics through a certain restricted lens.
6) Actually I changed it to 7+. Doesn’t matter if they’re in middle school. People are different and also it’s not like the government is going to be mostly 16 year olds. You’re gonna have a diversity of people selected for positive attributes. Not everyone involved in decision-making has to be a weak nerd.
7) nah that’s enough. Plus, you’re voting for who you trust. Politicians can’t be trusted despite their so-called worldviews. They’re shallow.
8) Chill. I’m suggesting how my political party would operate.
9) It does work when you’re deflecting without thinking of possibilities
Response:
"ideological stuff is silly, just vote for who you like, we'll figure things out" already says a lot about the thought that went into this
Answer:
You don't need to have an ideology in order to figure out an ideology once you actually get into power, if need be. Also, ideology is actually an enacted thing. It can be a natural thing. It doesn't have to be some system you know there and then.
If you only vote for people who already have a big ideology, you're voting for nerds and followers.
Also response:
basically like someone who says "Buildings nowadays are ugly. Plus engineers are useless and get paid too much. I have not studied engineering, nor have i ever built a house or building. However, I've seen buildings and came up with some designs i think look cool."
"Ive cooked up this draft and i think we should build this instead of the engineer stuff."
even if theres problems with the way our buildings are, and they need improvements
or even big changes
they wont be conjured from nothing but intuition and 5 hours minutes of contemplation from someone who has no clue what theyre talking about
Answer:
Dictatorial silliness isn't going to get into government, given the voting system choosing the right people, and given that those right people are still limited by others, both in terms of voting and in terms of being surrounded by other voted-in people.
The wisdom of the crowd will vote in the right people, and in this system, the wisdom of the crowd will go much further than it does in the current political system.
Also response:
and stop advertising gun practice in your half baked societal ideas
Answer:
soy
Someone else's response:
The crowd has a history of voting in those that make themselves popular, not necessarily those that make themselves wise
Answer:
that's because there's limited options, and the reason they vote in those that make themselves popular is because of the power-seeking way that people get political power
The problem is not the people. The problem is the system
The problem is always the system
Response:
The problem inherently is that man is not a perfect nor ever rational species
Answer:
he is perfectly rational. you just need to bring out that rationality
rationality and irrationality don't exist if you're a scientist
...if only the government was as smart as the free market...
There's nothing more boring than politics, which is why everyone who pursues it is a useless fuck.
A politician should serve the people, but if they were going to serve the people, why would they become a politician?
Naturally, most politicians are merely self-interested, and it doesn't help that the self-interest is enshrined in party procedures.
The free market makes miracles and the state makes fuck all progress because there's no serious incentive to actually serve people. The result is that political parties can scam the public for decades into thinking that they're actual leaders with something to offer.
The problem with politicians is that they went into politics because they're interested in politics - or worse. They didn't go into politics because they think they personally have all the answers or because they're really smart or deserving of political power.
Therefore, in reality we have a power vacuum, and the only reason it continues is because we trust that the politicians who fill that vacuum actually do have brainpower and are not just filler fluff that will inevitably be replaced by something serious.
contact: angulardoublehelix@gmail.com
In this world, we're faced with a choice between two extremes:
insane
retarded
I do not want the opinions of career activists who joined a political party when they were 15 to be leading my country! That's enough!
I do not want my country led from the back. Managers and lawyers are at the back. Cops and binmen are at the front.
Every once in a while, some lucky, smart guy comes along and changes everything. For some reason, I'm one of those guys - having survived to realise the lie of the "education" system, which hates intelligence and hates autonomy, and is the primary cause of this country's downfall, stemming from the hopeless political system - where you vote between parties that are fundamentally self-interested.
No sane person can say with a straight face that they live in a "liberal democracy" with "diversity, equity and inclusion" when we have a fascistic education system.
The idiocracy must fall. Liberal democracy doesn't exist. Yet. When it does, it'll be the most powerful and epic form of governance, unlocking the potential of the oppressed and ignored masses, sending a shockwave of sheer will and power the world over - and the great liberation of the 21st Century shall occur. Advanced civilisation will exist for the first time. It starts in Scotland (of course it does). The universe shall be unlocked by this revolution, and the species will pass the great filter, just as I have passed a great filter to be in the position to write this message.
Some may call me a lunatic, and I'd be pleased to hear it.
You can ignore every other political authority, in favour of mine, because I'm sure they're all far under my great maturity and genius. Few could possibly make what I am making.
I am sending this species into the (actual) space age. Into eternity. Into the depths of time and possibility. You will love and feel comfort like you have never felt before, knowing that, finally, someone with a brain has designed truth-based control - and that the control will outlast him, having torn through thoughtless tradition, then producing exponential success. Millions must love. Billions.
Useless politicians out. I invented democracy 2, school 2 and military 2 and religion 2.
Einstein said "the only thing that interferes with my learning is my education" but of course that's of no concern to a politician. To them, what they think is more important than what geniuses think.
⬆website preview text
This coincides with me finishing inventing democracy 2 on 2 July, 2025.
v24044gl0000d1ikqknog65gh8j1of80.movIf you want to have a good country, you need to listen to the people who do the good things - the very clearly good things. Some things are more clearly good than others. Don't bother listening to some "leader" or "authority" who hasn't done really good.
A lot of what is really good, is behaviour that is really necessary and/or brings happiness, and it does not require authority, and it comes of love and happiness.
When the most giving is the most leading, then everyone gets the most out of being led.
That is real equality.
Throw out all your other stupid models of what equality is. This is all you need.
You should get the social power that you give.
By the way, libtards (woke traditionalist opressors), social power cannot be given by the use of social power. It doesn't work like that.
Social power comes of material power.
For example, you are not able to socially empower someone if you are unable to move or otherwise manipulate objects.
If you were a king and you ordered the social empowerment of someone, that would not actually come from you - it would come from your materially powerful subjects who do as you say. Simple words, free from structure, do not socially empower - though the Equality Party (boomer brainrot) seem to think otherwise. Things socially empower, including bodies. Functionally, we contend with a world of things and bodies.
Only a complex social structure can be fit for the complex physical structures of our brains and bodies.
To hang on to the single word "equality" is the mental and political equivalent of devolving to being a single-celled organism.
Civ Sys offers a complexity fit for the stars. It is above the social structures of the day, while the Equality Party is below - operating within - a reactionary and tyrannical force (bad word choice - there's no force), making it weak. Like every other party, their principles are shallow.
There is no sign of weakness greater than saying you are "fighting" politically, when you are, in fact, frightened. ⤵
Ok, Equality Party. How are you going to give them these opportunities to contribute and thrive? Spoilers: They have no ideas.
See, this is the problem with current politics. It's all yapping, tweaking and adding and removing, but no structuring.
They say "systems that impact our lives", so they're on the right track, and then proceed to invent no better systems, and in fact instead they invent things for within the existing school system.
They also promise specific improvements. Little do they know, you can't just will things better, because everything is connected and everything is a trade-off. You actually have to use your brain if you want to make things better, but it appears that even intelligent people are silly billies compared to me - but that's probably just because the most intelligent people are not into politics - they have more mentally stimulating activity to engage in.
I'm probably the intellectually dominant lifeform on the planet, which explains my anti-intellectualism. The true intellectual is not a political intellectual. They will not pursue politics. They will pursue mechanics and truly difficult stuff, and you will have to pursue them if you want an intelligent civilisation, and therefore any civilisation at all.
THE CHILD INDOCTRINATION SYSTEM MUST END
and a bit of war would be nice, too. Places to conquer, you know - to give children a humane education system
Liberal democracy shall be delivered
Someone's main thing that they do (e.g. in any given week) should never be politics, and if it is, their personal opinion shouldn't particularly matter.
Especially if someone's main activity is politics, then they should just be a middleman, doing a job as lacking in authority as any other
I have come to the conclusion that the best voteless decision-making would come from a decision-making process involving awesome dudes and mothers. This comes from the idea that men are more likely to hyper-focus on one particular grand task, and are not good at unifying their ideas, and therefore it is no use that they debate. It is more useful that, in order for a group of men to remain united, they communicate their ambitions to a potentially smaller group of mothers whose job it is to unify their visions, such that they will cooperate. This goes by the sense that women are "lateral thinkers" and united by default, whereas men are "vertical thinkers" and focused by default, and that power comes from uniting focus. The focusers cannot unite themselves. It comes from the idea that men are dominating and women are uniting.
So, instead of wasting energy on each other, the men primarily do their masculine activity, and then to avoid inevitably clashing their energies or being isolated in their efforts, they will tell their desires to the women who do the primary female role of loving their offspring, and the women may discuss it and then tell the men what the solution is - which is not simply her own idea, as that would be inequality, but, a combination of the men's ideas, which is of course made realistic by her thought process.
The leadership is ultimately regarding what men do, which is more open-ended than what women are expected to do, and the women are expected to be gentle and submissive (I mean women literally are, relative to men, all contexts considered), so there is no need for them to be united because they are naturally united and unambitious. Therefore, it is men who need to seek soft women for their ability to unite them.
It doesn't really make sense for a woman to have a "leader" (or be a leader) in the way that a man does. Like, the leadership of men and the leadership of women is completely different. The women just need to be good women (which is easy for men to decide), but in order for men to be good, they have to be united by women that they've chosen.
For a public policy or project idea to reach the mothers for uniting, it would have to be passed on to an awesome dude first, who then might propose the idea to the mothers if he likes it.
In the physical world, this setup would be simply a group of men who regularly go to a group of women to speak their minds, awaiting the conflict resolution and/or unifying direction returned by the women. The women would not direct the men on their own accord, because it is the men who are seeking to lead themselves and remain united, by using women's abilities to think laterally. The men's unity in turn helps them to provide for the children and make and live in utopia.
This setup can be mirrored in the political world, but the vote system, as described initially, will be used, and this principle can be applied to the resulting government.
On the one hand, I am too angry at the political class, and on the other hand, I'm not angry enough. Just know that there is a part of my brain in which my blood boils in infinite anger and infinite hatred for the political class, who are generally aged 40 to 70. (I'm 24)
In an ideal world, I wouldn't be verbally abusing anyone, but we don't live in an ideal world, and the politicians abused their undeserved power first, so I'm justified.
Giving power to the power-seeking leads to abuse of said power, which is what voting for someone who says "Vote for me!" is.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth".
Take your "Political Science" degree and throw it in the bin. I'm interested in the opinions of good and capable people who actually make the country and evidently serve people. They won't seek political power. The state should seek them. The state should represent, learn from, and 'make' social and physical things for the best people - the strongest, the smartest and the kindest, thus making the country stronger, smarter, and kinder – Led from the front.
Surely essentially all people who have studied politics as a full-time activity are incapable of serving the people in any meaningful sense.
Don't kid yourself. No "normal" politician could ever plummet the deaths of despair in this country and increase the birth rate:
The government should consider all non-age-related deaths basically its own fault or responsibility, not just ones directly related to a government organisation such as the military, because, ultimately, all of society is government-organised because it's limited and enabled by government. So, it has responsibility. Drug deaths (and suicides) are worse than combat deaths because they died achieving nothing. The inner peace of drug death or suicide isn't better than that of combat death either.
Meme images and YouTube videos to humiliate professional politicians:
My verdict on AI:
Sometimes, you use AI, and think it's really smart. Other times, you can't believe how stupid it is.
AI can think fast, but not particularly hard or smart.
It's like a calculator. You can calculate way more than you need for managing your finances, but that doesn't mean using a calculator will sort out your finances.
To get the most out of a calculator, using its abilities meaningfully, requires a specific use-case.
People might think that because AI can do advanced things, that means it can answer any question well, but that would be akin to looking at all the buttons on a calculator and thinking that because it has a lot of buttons that must mean it has a button for everyone.
AI is the next level in automation, and can be useful for reaching answers that are obvious but still take time to reach.
AI as a personal tool can't use enough power to meaningfully think new things that humans couldn't think better.
AI put on the task of answering one specific human (not mathematical) question, and having millions of dollars spent on answering that one question, could be interesting. But... You could just spend millions of dollars to get humans to work together to answer the question.
I think AI is an "easy thinker" because the architecture of thought is there and can easily be scaled up. Meanwhile, to tap in many people's intelligence (to provide a highly reasoned human answer to a human question that one person cannot produce or represent) would require a thought-up system of how to do that. So, you'd have to think up the system of collective thinking.
With AI, however, you can just pour money into it without thinking about it.
Imagine if politicians devised systems of collective thinking, to get the people to solve their problems, and turn the solution into policy and advice, instead of taking their power and sitting on it like it's a game of musical chairs where it's all about them and their power and their win.
They do surveys, but collective thinking is something they haven't discovered.
There's
1. many people answering many of the same question to see what many people individually think
and then there's
2. many people answering one unique question
In 1, the answer is determined by the question. It's usually multiple-choice and about comparing. This is extraordinarily restrictive, for democracy to be based on this.
Surveys don't magically produce useful insight, because the average person doesn't produce useful insight alone, and the question was produced by a few average people and the output is just based on counting and comparing.
There is no processing. The processing is counting votes. Very caveman brained.
In 2, the answer involves output that wasn't part of input AND involves a process of combining and refining one answer which is supposed to serve all. The answer cannot be produced by any individual member, which is not how democracy currently works. With this new system, everyone is partly right, and that partly right can only emerge in interaction with others. This is anti-debate.
In current democracy, the fact that one person votes one way and another votes another way, and then one person might get exactly what they wanted, shows that it's a dumb system, because a smart system would follow a method which produces an output that is an innovation that actually tries to meaningfully tap the wisdom of the crowd.
Current democracy is a very weak attempt at tapping the wisdom of the crowd.
Of course, to perform 2, you'd have to think to even do that in the first place.
Thinking about thinking is the key to unlocking the universe.
You're just a more complicated version of every less complicated thing.
By being more complicated than something, it becomes "a part" of that thing.
The only way that organisms get more complicated is by compartmentalising.
Which means your life is both "bigger" and "smaller" than that of a single-celled organism
Which means that human society exists because it functions as an organism. If that wasn't the case, there would be no evolutionary advantage in all that complexity.
So, your country is like a single celled organism, (but that's just a concretisation of something you can't really know).
Get smaller to get bigger, in ParalooP.
Which is why human society falls apart when people be selfish.
And it's why humans are only strong in numbers.
Intelligent life has already "become the universe" as things become more ordered, by ordering disorder "out", making distinctions and compartments.
So, our world is our world much more so than it used to be.
However, organisms always act as if their world is theirs.
Something I wrote ages ago, related:
On 12 July 2025, my mum's dad, 89, died in hospital following a short illness.
Because I believe in the fractal nature of the universe (patterns within patterns), and therefore fractal alignment, I believe in signs. Yesterday, (12 July 2025) me and my mum saw a few signs (one of which I'm unsure of the rarity but mum said she'd never seen it), including a flock of terns that was flying above the house (and others, but it appeared they were mainly circling above the flat at one point), and the moon perfectly visible through this window, fitting perfectly for my usual viewpoint.
The other sign was caused by the sun setting which caused the (not lit) candle in the corner to reflect onto the living room window when mum was watching the birds, making the candle's reflection visible below the birds from her viewpoint on the sofa.
I wonder how the reflection and the moon will compare this evening. Will they will be similarly visible or was that a rare seasonal alignment with the right atmospheric conditions?
I think if things align nicely, then that's a good sign regarding what you're doing.
It's like, intelligence is illusory. There are only those who align themselves with the universe, and those who don't. Those who don't are "unlucky" and have nightmares, and those who do are "lucky" and relatively live in paradise, mentally.
Update: The moon has not been visible through that window recently when I checked (and it’s like a half moon now), and the reflection hasn’t been visible and there hasn’t been another flock of birds around.
I don’t know about the moon cycle off the top of my head but maybe the moon is visible through that window every 28 days.
So, each of these events is rare. All on the same day — very rare!
When I do a quantum coin flip to make or 'check' a choice, I get either what I wanted, or the right choice https://www.quantumcoinflip.com/
I often take sounds from outside as like micro signs, for example, "trying to tell me something"/alert me to something. Those sounds prompt me to think a little, and then I might remember to do something. I do this because I believe in fractal universe, meaning that everything is connected and you can tap into truth by including the universe in your behaviour. "Everything is intelligent". "Intelligence", being an illusion, is all around you, and it's a mistake to think "we're intelligent life forms and they're not". Less "intelligent" life forms can teach you a lot, as can random events. You've got to be humble to rumble. Otherwise, "the gods" will sit you down and take you out for not playing fair.
I don't have nightmares. My cousin told me I'm "lucky" for that. Little did she know, she has nightmares because she doesn't consider what her own brain is telling her. She puts consciousness first. If you put conscious thought above emotions and experiences, you go full retard.
Sometimes, to check an idea, I have basically waited, say, five seconds for the universe to give a sign against it, before doing it.
There's two types of "signs". There's ones you seek, like quantum coin flip or waiting for a sound, and ones that just happen and you consider maybe you should act upon that "random thing" that happened.
For example, I was typing the first paragraph of this message and forgot to turn off my battery-powered bedside lamp. Then, dogs barked outside. I considered for a moment, and saw and remembered to turn the light off. Useful!
Or, there might be something that I could take as a sign, like a relatively significant sound, and then to check if I should take the action it's probably "telling me to do", I listen again for another ~5 seconds for another such sign, and then if I get another, I can be the sure that the first sound was a sign.
Labour, you call yourself the party of the working people, but it appears to me that you absolutely hate the working people.
When I was 5, the first job I wanted was to be a street cleaner, and as an adult I only quit my job as a (Biffa, Abingdon) street cleanser due to head pains related to the education system.
If someone wants a career as a street cleanser, why must he sit through algebra, science, drama, art, assembly, and all this other useless nonsense before doing what he wants.
Why can't he just start litter picking already??
Why can't he just work out when he wants, play sports when he wants, and learn about working class jobs, which the education system doesn't teach about?
The education system doesn't teach driving, and it doesn't teach street cleansing techniques. It only teaches specific things. All the while, you're, in many cases, forced to wear a shirt and tie, if that wasn't bad enough.
Like, seriously, you teach drama, art and music in secondary school, which are "upper class" jobs, but driving and building doesn't matter?
Why force him through this nonsense, and then he comes out the other side with his soul destroyed and you call yourself the party of the working class (well, you changed it to "working people", but I remember)
You're more interested in middle/upper class trans activists than the working class.
It's about time somebody popped your bubble!
CENTRISTS ARE DESTROYING THE WORLD.
CAPITALISTS AND COMMUNISTS RISE UP AGAINST TAXATION AND STATE RETARDATION.
The centrists gotta go! They gotta go!
Centrists include: Lib Dems, SNP, Reform, Conservatives, Labour etc.
Greens have a few ideas that the education system is bad, but they're too stupid to actually have a plan
I'm not saying that we can't have your autistic little grading and qualification system to some degree, for those who want it. What I am saying is, you don't need to do an English exam just to be literate. There's a reason kids stay out of school. It's because they know that our "leaders" are airheads, themselves victims of the system that they perpetuate.
It's called wisdom of the crowd, when kids don't take school seriously. You might think they're just being stupid, but, actually, stupid kind of doesn't exist. The leaders should take the wisdom of the crowd seriously instead of just autistically cracking down as though a rigid, top-down control school system is the answer to life, the universe, and everything that will see humanity through as it reaches for the stars.
Music:
I personally declare HeliX holy war on all governments everywhere, taking effect immediately and only ending in inevitable HeliX victory. The things you can do when "God" (the universal order) is on your side..follow the leader - geneburn | slowed and reverb Viva el schizautismo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I say "schizautism" (after JREG) but I've never been "diagnosed" with autism or schizo or anything — and I've never used a mind-altering substance apart from two small cups of coffee which I didn't like. Also, therapy and psychiatry is mostly bullshit I reckon. Profit incentive. They don't know how the brain works from a scientific, humble perspective. Neuroscience is real. Psychology is mental masturbation. Whatever comes out of the mouth of a "clinical psychologist" is less important than what anyone else thinks)
KSLV - Undead (Slowed & Reverb)
Moving Hectic (feat. Harry Shotta)
Lucky paraloop 7 (as opposed to eating 8 as above)
7 = 2+3+2 (a lot of universal significance if you basically "read between the lines", which I don't need to go into, but I'll give two examples:
There's also religious significance:
2. God, Jesus
3. Father, Son, Holy Spirit
(2) God, Man
= 7
The name of the Party symbol is "paraloop":
See the connection between what paraloop conveys and the potential shape of the cloud of ice that surrounds the solar system. https://phys.org/news/2025-02-spiral-oort-cloud.html
This is in line with the shape of the 2D double helix - converging in and crossing over to expand again.
Paraloop (paradox-loop) is a symbol trying to describe the nature of reality.
The idea is that the universe is fractal and simultaneously one big paraloop and an infinite number of smaller paraloops.
BRITISH EMPIRE v2 IS COMING Villiam Lane Particles Slowed
WE'RE GOING TO MARS
Think about space. The opportunity. The vastness of time and possibly.
When the Best Tarkov Players Fight Each other
Catholic ✝️ Military Orders During the Crusades ⚔️🛡🏴
THE NEW WORLD ORDER HAS BEGUN
#GOLDENAGE
CAPE_TO_CAIRO_NIGGA.mp4
my political mission is more important than my life.
I will not be defeated by the education (indoctrination) system.
I will defeat it.
Everyone who allowed its continuation will become politically irrelevant.
The indoctrination system will be replaced around the world. You messed with the wrong guy. Game over.
There's no levelling up, "Conservatives". It's game over for you.
Disband the party if you have any shame
Those that taste the bite of my words - the dark lords who have wronged me - may call me the Doom Slayer.
It's not over. Western Civilisation is not over anymore.
Oh, another thing. Take your "left/right divide" and throw it in the fucking garbage.
There is no such thing when you're aren't a fucking idiot.
There are no left-wing policies and right-wing policies when you're a genius. There are good ones and bad ones.
No more jargon.
No more buzzwords.
All you old fucks do is divide (and deride) people. That's fucking it. That's all you achieve. Unity is possible when you use your brain, because you can realise that we are one, and we should love each other, like Jesus said. PS Ok I'm exaggerating a tiny bit, because politicians also do brainless activist policy
When you zoom out to all of time and space, knowing how little time you have in the universe relative to eternity, you know that love is ultimately what you want, and makes success, and what connects people across time, making you have a place in eternity, by your love which unifies you with past, present, small and large.
Yes, you can have unity by division, when you use your brain. That's the only way you can have unity, is by letting people divide themselves, as opposed to dividing people.
Many things are possible when you use your brain. Glorious things.
In horseshoe theory, these two have more in common with each other than the abnormal slightly intelligent person:
The genius
The average person
Regarding Terry Davis, I also loved ants when I was a kid, and was a genius level programmer (although from my perspective, everyone else my age was just a fucking idiot. I didn't rebel in school, although I came close, but now I know I would have been absolutely justified, had I rebelled against the retarded ass fucking adults that I was actually more intelligent than)
This means that, if I would have been justified in rebelling against school, then everyone else who has rebelled, and does rebel, is justified, too.
FUCK YOU GOVERNMENT. WHY DON'T YOU GIVE A FUCK ABOUT KIDS and then pretend with Ofsted that you "care" or whatever. IT'S A FUCKEN LIE.
I, AND THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, HAS BEEN DRAGGED THROUGH A LIE.
I WONDER WHAT OTHER ESTABLISHMENT LIES ARE BEING TOLD TO KIDS?
TAKE YOUR GCSEs, and 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Your A levels. Your T levels. Your this. Your that.
All these buzzwords. This jargon. WE DON'T NEED THEM. IT'S NOT WHAT'S IMPORTANT.
KIDS NOT CATTLE
"Portfolio" this, punctuality that, across the board. IT'S DISGUSTING and IT'S UNDUE STRESS, and it's IGNORANCE OF WHAT ACTUALLY MAKES A FUNCTIONING CIVILIZATION.
I don't care if you grew up with it and it's all you've ever known. (Leadership is to boldly go into the great unknown, in the hopes of bringing treasure)
IT'S NOT NATURAL. THINK OF HUMAN HISTORY.
YOU'RE DONE. 🔥👺⚔️
I will go to war over this shit, at least if that's what it takes.
You have two choices, government:
1. Reform 2. Civil war (more like a bloodless coup like in Syria, but anyway)
You get what you deserve. You mess with me, I mess with you.
Sorry that being a LEADER OF A COUNTRY isn't a walk in the park,
and that grassroots rebellions will take place if you just sit on your throne for decades in a way that demonstrates real lack of empathy and lack of striving for your people.
The virtue signalling has been real. Oh yeah, your racial justice, your gender this, your, whatever bro, you don't know anything. It's cheap points. But guess what? Cheap points don't work when you're supposed to lead a country.
They might have given you an extra decade of throne time, but eventually people see how thin their "leadership" is. TODDLER LEVEL. FOOTBALL MATCH LEVEL. Politicians aren't supposed to be talking minor issues like it's the pub. IT'S NOT A SATURDAY AT WETHERSPOONS, YOU'RE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, SO USE YOUR BRAIN LIKE YE ARE. That might seem a bit harsh, coming from a genius, but, if you lack intelligence, you can always make up for it with empathy and knowing who is intelligent. The problem is, politicians are probably indoctrinated into thinking they're intelligent because they went to university, and they think that the fucking qualifications are proof of intelligence, when literally it just means you're average smart if you get straight As, because the qualifications are invented by average people. I'M TIRED OF AVERAGE PEOPLE TREATING COOL PEOPLE BADLY. Qualifications can tell you if someone cared and has a brain, but it can't tell you who's a good person or who's really smart.
I suggest we take our qualifications and rip them up, and maybe burn them after.
The state should not be forcing this crap on anyone. It's totally unnecessary.
All the state needs to do is watch out for security and welfare. This crap has nothing to do with either.
The people can organise themselves to educate themselves. All we really need is basic literacy and numeracy and a few other things. We don't need years of compulsory slog in which parents and kids have no say.
Everybody who thinks qualifications are important is a dumb cultist licking the boot of the regime.
And don't you dare cry for employers. They'll be fine without this stuff being mindlessly pushed on every teenager.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse