[New Era]

There are forum members that translated their thoughts and views in words and have created ideologies that mark their character, so shall I. I will explain my vision in a short essay translating my views and thoughts.

The popular totalitarian forms of the past have always been expansive, the desire to conquer could be used as a key element of the totalitarian movements of the past. However I do wonder, how can you strife for order, stability and peace when you conquer other cultures and order them to submit to your own culture, it doesn't make sense to me. Pacificism is one of the keys of the collective, the ideology is not of a expansive nature, it's goal is that every country creates it's own collective and allies with the other collectives but don't force their ideas on their foes.

The collective is not populism, people will say what others won't like to hear. Children won't be encouraged by words as "you are doing your best" they will be called weak from their birth untill the moment they prove they are strong. They will spend their school years always trying to achieve perfection, they will be competive in nature but will recieve penalties when their actions could harm the collective. Each has their own job and nobody interferes with the other ones job. The insect empire could serve the best example. There are leaders, warriors and workers. The leaders control everything and monitor everything, unlike in the past the amount of leaders will be huge, up to 200 leaders for a country as little as Belgium. Their actions must serve the collective if not they will be killed in a period of one week. The warriors will only gain prestige when they have to defend the collective and don't fail in battle, the workers will gain prestige by doing their best for the collective.


I will expand on more subjects after people had the chance to read this short text, please share me your thoughts and subjects you want to hear more about. If you care for another name, please submit one, this is only a working title.

[Redaction. -Lok]

[Neo-Manichaean Sarcophobe]

Pacificism is one of the keys of the collective, the ideology is not of a expansive nature, it's goal is that every country creates it's own collective and allies with the other collectives but don't force their ideas on their foes.

Could you elaborate on this one country = one collective thesis? Does it have to do with national selfdetermination? Why do you use the "country" as your standard unit? Why not a single worldspanning collective, or for instance a collective consisting of all Arabic countries (same culture), or even a citysized collective? The most efficient collectives are often quite small consisting of a number of people ranging from perhaps 10-15 to a few thousands. Religious communes (the Family, Amish etc.) are examples of such mini-collectives and usually are very stable and efficient.

Also, it seems your vision does require some sort of world conquest (or at least a world crisis) for all countries in the world to adopt this collectivist idea. If a single country declared itself a collective like the one you describe, it would surely be crushed either directly or indirectly by the hostile, democratic world. It would only survive if the rest of the world also was partitioned into similar collectives. Do you have any suggestions as to how this would come about?

[New Era]

Could you elaborate on this one country = one collective thesis? Does it have to do with national selfdetermination? Why do you use the "country" as your standard unit? Why not a single worldspanning collective, or for instance a collective consisting of all Arabic countries (same culture), or even a citysized collective? The most efficient collectives are often quite small consisting of a number of people ranging from perhaps 10-15 to a few thousands. Religious communes (the Family, Amish etc.) are examples of such mini-collectives and usually are very stable and efficient.

Also, it seems your vision does require some sort of world conquest (or at least a world crisis) for all countries in the world to adopt this collectivist idea. If a single country declared itself a collective like the one you describe, it would surely be crushed either directly or indirectly by the hostile, democratic world. It would only survive if the rest of the world also was partitioned into similar collectives. Do you have any suggestions as to how this would come about?

The different cultures that manifested in one country are too influenced by the native culture to make a collective based on the culture and not on the country. Also they can share the same culture but be hostile to each other based on history and thus endangering their collective. A collective based on a country means that the people living there have been able to coexcist without any serious problems and are excellent material for a collective. A collective would fail if it's too big, there is no way you can effective monitor a collective the size of the usa, thus it should be divided in collectives that ally themselves with the other but don't interfere with the other.

If you look at North Korea or China you will see some sorth of collective, they are like one good machine and they could be seen as raw material for a collective. True, most forms of totalitarian systems need a certain form of conquest or crisis to be used. However it's unlikely that democracy will form any serious indirect threat. If they would form a direct threat, than the collective shall defend itself with warriors that have been trained from their birth and are ready to die for their country in a blink of a eye, the collective won't be without allies, thus if it would ever come to a war they would have allies to aid them.