Supercommunism (v1.0) Table of contents Supercommunism (v1.0) 1 Table of contents 1 Summary 2 Philosophical basis 3 Work 5 Housing 10 Females 13 Fertility rate 16 Eugenics 18 Justice System 21 Diversity and race-mixing 23 Settlements and transportation 25 Animal rights 28 Genocide 29 Arts, culture, entertainment 30 Capitalism 31 Implementation & stability 33 Abortion 37 LGBT & SJW 38 Other 39 Author & license 45 Summary Supercommunism - a socialist dictatorship made of philosophers, scientists, vegans. No, this is not a joke, after reading you will understand why this is the best system. Supercommunism is build on philosophy, logic, mathematics. The main philosophical thought on which it is based is "single receiver of consciousness". Supercommunism is built on various ideas and ideologies: communism, socialism, dictatorship, nazism, veganism, georgism, capitalism, islam, buddhism, judaism, medieval laws. All conscious beings are equal. All conscious beings must avoid suffering and maximize pleasure. Philosophical basis The philosophical basis of supercommunism is the "single receiver of consciousness" theory: Consciousness is a result of physical phenomena, some atomic/subatomic particles in the brain produce it. It is a feature of the universe, of physics. We are inside one universe, one physics, therefore there is a single receiver of consciousness. Single actor that experiences it. But the experiences are separated because there is no memory shared between two people. We have separate brain and memory, that's why there is an illusion of many humans, people. But it is an illusion. When you have stomach ache, but then some other person has it too, the result is the same. You think your one (stomach ache) is more important or even that only you have consciousness, but in the universe there is only one consciousness receiver. We are just atoms formed in specific combinations and the brain allows to experience consciousness. This theory and phenomena extends to animals, including the ones that are eaten alive in the jungle or raised for meat in cages. It even extends to aliens on another planets, as long as they evolved similar mechanism. They could evolve different consciousness though, or no consciousness at all. It is not enough to avoid your own suffering, we have to avoid suffering of all living, conscious beings. All animals (including humans). If you make some harm to animal or human, it is the same as if you did that to yourself, you will feel this pain, just in another "dimension", another timeframe. In some way, there is a single "person" in the universe, the single receiver of consciousness, he is alone in the universe. Multiple, separate people and animals are just an illusion, delusion. They are illusion as a side effect of people's memory being separated into each brain and inaccessible by others. When rich and powerful people conspire against the poor, they conspire against themselves, they make suffering to their own, to the single consciousness receiver. However, the theory seems to be compatible with depopulation, sterilization of people. With less people on Earth, the quality of life could be much better. Not all animals and humans have the same level of self-consciousness. The level might be correlated to the level in Positive Disintegration model by Kazimierz Dąbrowski [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_disintegration]. Now, once you properly understand this theory, and what are the consequences, what infinite suffering are you experiencing, there are two solutions: 1. Destroy all life. On Earth and in space, in the whole universe. Create self replicating machines that will fly the whole universe and destroy all signs of life. 2. We need to create new system, new ideology, supercommunism, where we care not just about every human, but also about every animal and even aliens in the space. We have to push this new system everywhere on Earth, by force. We cannot let the suffering and injustice to happen anywhere. The supercommunism believers will need to become presidents, prime ministers, dictators, they need to take the power by force if necessary. And when they take over a country with nuclear weapons, they need to use the nuclear weapons to destroy opponents, to take control of more countries. All methods allowed for the higher cause - the ultimate cause - the supercommunism. Supercommunism is a ideology that provides food and housing to every human, but also to animals, and even to aliens in the universe. We need to take control of the whole universe, because somewhere there could be suffering and injustice, and we have to stop this and make happiness or void. Work Should work exist at all? We need products and services so it seems that work will stay with us for some time. However, automation, factories, artificial intelligence, resource management - these tools could be used to limit the amount of work needed. To work less we should also consume less. We need to stop buying goods that are replaced after a year, the real ecology is when you use something for very long time. If we will eat healthy food and have healthy lifestyle, less doctors will be needed. Should all people earn the same amount of money/resources or different? Both positions are compatible with supercommunism, but there are some problems associated with giving everybody the same money. Some jobs require high talent and a lot of education, and there is large demand for them. By giving such workers more money, you give motivation to other (young) people, to learn this job, get education, and also do this type of work. So by giving higher salaries to jobs with higher demand, more people will do this jobs. If everybody would earn the same as everyone, less people would choose important jobs with high demand and requiring high skills, most people would choose what they like and what doesn't require effort. The higher wage might motivate some people to do jobs that are not popular, that nobody wants to do. For example, what if nobody will want to be a cleaning lady or a garbage collector? If we paid more for such jobs, then we might find people willing to do them. However, the difference in wage is not as important in supercommunism, because even minimum wage, simple worker, will be able to afford housing, food, car (if he lives outside city). And if you earn more money/points, you cannot buy 10 houses like in capitalism, because it will be illegal. And instead of money we could have points or social credits, you could earn them not only from work but doing other good things. Or we might have both money and social points. But the advantage of social points is, you wouldn't be allowed to give them to other people. This would prevent corruption. Automation/AI/Robotics are very useful. They can replace human labor. We can produce goods and services without human effort. However, when this is in the hands of capitalists, this will not give any benefits to humanity, what we will get instead is feudalism, mass famine, extermination of 6 billions humans. Automation/AI/Robotics/factories should be in the control of supercommunist state, not private individuals and families. People should work less. (phase 1 can be skipped and we can start from phase 2). Phase 1: enforce 8 hours work. Some countries make a fraud that "work" is 8 hours, but there is mandatory 1.5h break, so you waste 9.5 hours at workplace. All places should have 7.5h work plus 0.5h paid break = 8h. Overtime, if allowed at all, should make workers work less in following days. So, there should be a weekly limit of 40 hours and daily limit of 10 hours. If you work 10 hours one day, you can work 6 hours other day. But should overtime be allowed at all? Maybe only in some jobs. Phase 2: 8 hours per day and 4 days per week (32 hr/week) I think this is better than 6-7 hours per 5 days of week. It allows for people to have long uninterrupted time for their rest, hobbies, fun, travel etc. What about offices working time? They could be open for 4 days in a week. Or, they could hire two people, and each of them would work 3.75 days per week. That means, one day per week, the office would be open for 12 hours, so some people could access it after work. Phase 3: 6 hours per day x 4 days (or) 8 hours per day x 3 days (24 hr/week) 6 hours of work would still allow factories to work 24/7, but the second option (8 hours 3 days) is also good. Shops and places could hire two people, each would work 3 days, so they would be open 6 days per week, for 8 hours every day. Or maybe we could allow both options? Maybe there should be weekly limit of 24 hours and daily limit of 8 hours? And maximum 4 days per week working days. Phase 4: 6 hours per day x 3 days (18 hr/week) Still allows factories to work 24/7 if necessary, shops can hire two people to be opened 6 days a week. But there is one problem, if we make that offices and shops are open for 7 days (for example one person 3 days, other person 4 days), that means there will be no day when most people don't work. And this is problematic, because such day is needed for sport and entertainment events gatherings in bars etc. religious services We could make one day free from work for most people. Only some police, nurses, doctors, firefighters etc. would work. And events could be organized on this day. Or, we can simply use the multiplier for this. We can make that Saturday and Sunday pays 200% per hour. Or that Sunday pays 300% per hour. This will give motivation to limit people employed on this day. With less work time, people will have time for hobbies, leisure, voluntary work, fun. We need to put sanctions against countries who work more, so we don't get flooded with products from them, products who are made in unfair competition (they have 6 days x 10 hours work). And we need to destroy such countries with nuclear weapons. People should get money for free, all people, or only unemployed people. But if someone works he should have more money than unemployed person. Otherwise small amount of people would work. But also, we should work on system that will limit need for work, stuff should be automated with factories, robots, AI, so less people can produce more. This will allow people to work less or work in other areas (science, art, video games etc.) rather than waste life in a factory. And we should produce and consume less, this will also allow us to work less. Shopping malls. Many large shopping malls are horrible for people because they do not have windows. It's not that big problem for customers, but the workers have to spend 9 hours per day in a place without windows. This is a horrible place, no windows, no light, no sky, only toxic artificial light, walls. Even prisons have windows. but shopping malls don't. The people who work there suffer, they live in caverns like rats. New buildings that do not provide window (of enough size) to every shop, should be banned, and existing buildings set for destruction after 15 years. Factories. Horrible places that: do not have windows are very loud dangerous (accidents, machinery) grey, ugly soulless Factories are horrible and they make suffering and psychological damage to factory workers. Current factories should be illegal. We need regulations to make factories less harming to workers, such as: requiring windows in them limiting shift time to 6 hours (so 4 workers per 24h) requiring factories to be better looking inside, having flowers, grass, paintings frequent breaks, maximum 2 hours of work without break. so in 6 hour long shift, there could be two breaks, and one of them longer to allow to consume large meal higher pay because workers have to endure such bad place requiring them (factories, machinery) to be quiet replacing humans with robots and machinery as much as possible produce and consume less = less people needed in factories Warehouses are also evil and similar to factories, they should have similar regulations. Payment for work. The people should not have monthly salary but hourly salary. You get as much money as hours you worked. There should be various multipliers for hourly salary. Saturday and Sunday - 150%? 175%? 200%? Hours 7:30-16:59 - 100%, hours 17:00-21:59 - 150%, hours 22:00-7:29 - 200%. And free overtime work should be illegal and punished. Work agencies should be illegal. Minimum wage should be regulated by state. There can be different minimum wage for each region (at least in the early phases, in last phase wages could be the same everywhere) and there will be different minimum wage for every job. The minimum wage for each job will be set depending on various criteria: demand vs supply, if there is low supply, wages will be increased to attract people into choosing this job education and skills, talents required productivity/profits/leverage/scale - for example, a software developer can work on program that is used by millions of people, while other jobs are local and cannot affect large scale management/responsibility - you can earn more if you manage workers, state company, organization etc. We could also make mandatory pay rise, that people who work longer than specified years, would have to make minimum wage of job x multiplier. Work should be optional. Humans are born without their consent. And then, we tell them to go to work, slavery, and if they don't do this, they are homeless, suffer, and sometimes die from starvation. Even if they do this (work, pay taxes) and are a good goys, at the end they get a prize of having cancer, being old, and dying. This is a massive crime. All humans (and animals) are entitled to get free housing and free food, free healthcare. But how to maintain this system if nobody will work? There are solutions: a lot of jobs can be done by robots, machines, AI the jobs that have to be done by humans, we can offer such people more money, food, housing, stuff, fame, so they will have more that people who don't work eugenics/sterilization, to prevent humans from degenerating humans can do work out of boredom, volunteer Housing Ownership of houses, apartments and cars by individuals or renting from state? There is not much difference between ownership and renting in supercommunism, because both would be regulated by state, both could work. even if house ownership was allowed, there would be no inheritance, no giving someone for free, no selling for less than the market price if ownership is allowed, we could add a "tax for property appreciation", which you would pay when selling house. So if you sold a house, you wouldn't be allowed to profit from it if renting (from state), you would be allowed to make many changes to the property and garden, without asking state for consent, and you could rent the same house for 50 years. This is different from capitalism, where capitalist will terminate your contract after a year because he wants to do something else, and you have to ask his consent to put one nail to the wall if ownership is allowed, you would have to pay property/land tax (progressive) if you rented or owned house, inheritance wouldn't be allowed, but your children could continue renting the same house, after your death rent prices would be state regulated, in capitalism capitalist raises prices as much possible to extract maximum profit So as you see, there wouldn't be much difference between ownership and rent, both can work in supercommunism. But, risks of renting from state: some people might destroy and vandalize the property. (Semi)ownership solves this problem, when you destroy property you lose your wealth. But alternative solution, is for state to demand large/medium damage deposit (a few thousand dollars or more). The advantage of allowing house ownership is that, you can build the house you like, that fits you, and place in location you like. With renting you can only choose from what is available/built. Maybe we could allow both ownership and renting (from state), because difference would be small. Renting of houses by individuals to other individuals will not be allowed, and house ownership will be limited to 1 or maybe 2 houses per person. But we might allow subrenting of rooms in house you live. The state, would not only rent entire apartments and houses, but some would be rented for rooms and student buildings with large amount of rooms. The rooms would be rented, for example, to: students construction workers working far from their home, migratory workers etc. unemployed people If you work fulltime (32 hours, or less in later stages) you will afford to rent apartment for yourself (not a room), if you have a wife or girlfriend, you will afford to rent large apartment or house, if you are long-term unemployed, you will get free money from state that will allow you to rent a room and buy food etc. so that you are not homeless. If you worked but lost your job, you will have money + money from state, that will allow you to continue renting your apartment and looking for new job. But if you still don't have a job after many months, you will have to switch from apartment to rent a room, because you will not afford entire apartment from unemployment money. Another option, is to limit apartment size/choice depending on family size. So, if you are single, even if you earn a lot of money, you will not be allowed to rent 4 bedroom house (but maximum 2 bedroom house/apartment), because this would be a waste and inefficient, this house could be instead occupied by a family. People with large family would rent/own a large house. The state might subsidize their rent depending on number of children. Most apartments/houses would be unfurnished (but they would have kitchen drawers, maybe washing machines). You would bring your own furniture and when you move to another apartment you would take furniture with you. Rooms for rent - maybe furnished? Or some furnished, some not. Maybe without mattress? If you rented (from state), your rent could be terminated by state only for major reasons (and you could disagree and go to court first), so it would be common for people to rent single house for entire lifetime if they wish so. There could be also very low quality small housing (like favelas), that would be for people like homeless people, drug addicts etc. It could be free, or it could add a "loan"/tax of 100 dollars per month to someone, for using this housing. But people wouldn't be evicted even if they didn't pay this loan. So there would be no homeless people. The long term "unemployment money" given to people, might be given unconditionally, or it can require some kind of community service, volunteering, some contribution to society. But even people that do not contribute in any way, should at least be given housing containers and food. The housing containers, would share two walls with another container. High rise apartment buildings should be illegal, maximum allowed should be maybe 4 levels or around this. Instead, the city should grow bigger, to the outskirts. If you put hospitals, schools, shops etc. in every district of the city, there is no need to concentrate humans in very tall dense buildings in the center. If every district will have their shops, workplaces etc., the people will not have to travel to city center every time they want to do something. The small city center circle, it should be a place for drunk tourists, brothels, bars, clubs etc. it shouldn't be a place to have apartment. Very high apartment buildings are bad for many reasons: they aren't that much cheaper, because they require stronger foundations they obscure landscape, sky, sunlight (shadows) they produce very high density of humans = road jams the people can jump from high stories from windows or someone can push them from the windows they are bad for birds, birds die from colliding with such buildings What about non-apartment tall buildings like offices? Should they be banned? Undecided. Nobody should be homeless. Homeless people should be given small, crowded, low quality housing. But if a person will work, the person should afford high quality housing. Females Women equality vs inequality with males. Should women have same rights, same jobs, same everything, as men? No. The evolution made females and males different, they are built in different way and their purpose in society was always different and should be different. Females have different skeletons, brains, hormones, looks, strength, hobbies. They shouldn't do same things as males. If evolution "thought" that equality is good, then females and males would look the same, have same brains, skeletons, everything. What a "equality" policy of females does is, it destroys the diversity of the sexes. This is invented by capitalists, because they don't need males and females, they need workers, or actually, slaves. They want males and females to look in same way and do same jobs. This will also tank birth rates, but capitalists don't care about that because they don't think long term. They only want short term profits, even if they will destroy society or planet Earth. Capitalists invented "equality" and put women into workplace in order to have double amount of workers and to drop the wages by half. They want women and men to compete for jobs. But should we have full segregation of the sexes like in the middle east and Afghanistan? Not necessarily. If full political power is given to males, they often do wars, war crimes, nazism, holocaust and all kinds of stuff. Also, some females have male talents and they are capable of doing male jobs. This is why I am leaning to a compromise system, where most females should be stay-at-home wives or work female jobs like nurses, but some females could have real careers and work in male jobs. One possibility is a two-tier system, where a young female is tested for her intellect and talents and she is either classified into a mother/wife or into a career woman. The first one will have to marry someone and give him babies and cook food, while the second one will be allowed to study, work, do male jobs, drive a car. Another possibility is that all women, when young, would be wives and have babies, but later when their kids are bigger they would go to work. Women should have about 2-3 babies, they should have them when they are young, after this they could study or work. But not all women should be mothers. We should ban all alternatives to motherhood, such as owning cats or dogs and treating them like children. Females and males, maybe should be segregated in schools. Females should be taught how to be a good wife, how to cook, clean the house, how to care their babies. They should be married off when they are young, like 12 year old to a 30+ year old males, as both of them are in their peak attractiveness. After the wife raises the kids, maybe she could go to study and get some job. Divorces. Divorces are bad and they are promoted by the capitalists. They need divorces because after divorce the couple needs two houses/apartments instead of one. A lonely woman is also sad and buys a lot of wine, products, movies, she buys a lot of stuff to fill her shallow and empty life. Divorces = less children. Divorces = children do not have families. I am not saying divorces should be fully banned, but they should be restricted, a couple should first try to fix their relationship and not jump to divorce. Should rape in marriage be allowed? Or if not, at least, wives should be punished for not giving sex with fines and arrest, or divorced with their fault. Giving sex is wife's duty. Adultery. Adultery should be punished. But I am not sure if males should also be punished for it, or only females. The adultery of a male and female are not the same thing. We need to lower age of marriage. If sex with 12 year old girls was bad, the evolution wouldn't give them puberty and period, and evolution wouldn't make them sexy. But they have period, can be impregnated and they are sexy, so it's clear that nature and evolution want us to fuck and impregnate little girls. Sex and marriage with little girls is illegal because of organized mafia of capitalists and old females. Capitalists do not want men to have good things for free, while old females do not want better competition, they cannot compete with little girls. Little girls are superior in every way to old hags. When women are allowed to select their sexual partner, they choose a loud drug addict with tattoos, he knocks her up, she has his baby, then he dumps her and she is a single mother. Is this good for society? Or woman chooses popular rock singer who fucks 1000 other women, the woman gets STDs from him and he will not be a father that supports this 1000 babies. Is this good for society? Of course it's not. Women have to be banned from selecting partners, because they are not capable of selecting a partner. In old times and current times in other societies, the father chosen to who he will give his daughter, but this is also not great, it has many issues. We could have some mixed system, where a woman wouldn't be allowed to freely choose her husband, but she would be given choice of few men that are suitable, then meet and know all of them, and make a choice. But maybe this is bad, to give her choice at all. Another option, is to use computer algorithm, that will select best choice, pair most fitting man and woman, so that both are happy and produce quality children. Fertility rate How to make people actually have babies, like in the past? There are many ways to achieve this: removing many women from workplace so they get bored at home and have babies out of boredom ban goyphones (mobile phones), social media, TV and soap operas, or ban them just for females, so that they are bored at home and want babies out of boredom limit or ban contraception. Banning might give result of having too many babies. Contraception could also be legal only for couples that already have at least two kids limit education of women, only send some women (with high potential) to education, most women should be uneducated, at least before they produce two or more babies. Females should first have kids, when they are young, then after this they could study and work (if at all) ban owning of cats and dogs, females own them instead of kids, they treat them as kids lower age of marriage and marry young girls, at their puberty or even earlier. The younger the marriage and first pregnancy, the more kids a woman can have make that at some hours during Saturday or Sunday, the electricity, TV, internet will stop working. This will make people have sex and possibly get pregnant make that big houses are cheap and make people live in houses in the suburbs or countryside. When people see empty spaces (in the house and outside), they want to fill them with something, for example with children have people own houses/apartments or rent from the state, because when people rent from private capitalists, they don't have stability, they fear they can be evicted at any time tax benefits for people with children. Lower property taxes and rent (they need bigger apartments and houses), lower income taxes. Direct payments of money to people with children can be considered but they are not great, they can attract the wrong people to have children, the "bottom" people make places and events where peak males (30-40 old) can meet peak females (6-14 old) to find a girlfriend and then a wife. Or alternatively, arrange marriages, by families or by the state allow dads to have some "fun" with his daughter, at night in the bed and during bathing. This is controversial but it would give motivation to males to have children. However, negative effect of this would be that the future husband of this daughter won't get perfect, pure, virgin product. Another similar idea is to allow dads to sell their daughters to males as wives, this would give monetary motivation to have children and daughters. I am not sure though if monetary motivation is a good motivation to have children stop women from selecting who their husband is allow rape in marriage. Controversial but could increase fertility rate The methods that I listed really work but you will never see capitalist nation implement them, because they only lie that they want high fertility rate, or even if they wanted, short term profits of capitalists are more important than long term interests of a nation. Eugenics A problem of communism and supercommunism is degeneration of genes and degeneration of quality of humans. If we give every person work, housing, food, unemployment money, everything, this can result in situation that, lower quality people (low intellect, diseases, disabilities, low talents, fat, lazy, criminals, drug addicts etc.) might procreate and produce many children and spread their (bad) genes. Over long time, few generations of this can quickly lower mean quality of people and it can collapse system, collapse supercommunism. This issue is also called "strong times create weak men, weak times create strong men", it is a popular meme on the internet. However, I think there is a way to break this circle and to keep strong men and strong times constantly. But first, lets see how capitalists solve this problem. They solve it in the following way: they make a jungle where wolves eat sheep, or actually mafias and oligarchs eat unorganized, poor people they starve the poor people so they die from starvation or so the poor people eat each other they feed the people with goyslop, vaccines, microplastic, to make them infertile (but this targets all people, not just weak genes) they make people so poor (despite people working full time) they cannot afford housing and kids they do nothing and wait so people degenerate and the system collapses, because capitalists do not think long term Now, the solutions that I propose: only allow some people (90% of the population) to have children, based on many parameters (diseases, fatness, occupation, achievements etc.), abort children that are not allowed like above, but instead of aborting children, sterilize the bottom 10% of the population, so they don't get pregnant (sterilize both women and men). Sterilizing/aborting bottom 10% is enough. or even less than 10%, like 5%, because on next generation, we will sterilize 5% bottom again (but next generation was already better quality), then again 5% etc. the people can fight sterilization, so instead we could disguise sterilization as "vaccine", so the person will not know it's a sterilization we can offer money and other profits to people selected for sterilization, if they don't have children or if they will accept sterilization. This is less violent and less controversial than previous methods. and most of the bottom people will accept a new car for a sterilization we can put sterilization chemicals into products that are consumed by the bottom people, like fast foods (goyslop), fluid jew (soda, etc.), tobacco, ethanol (if such things will be even legal in supercommunism). We could hide the fact that they contain this, but maybe we don't have to. The bottom people will consume the products even if it is written on them that they stop reproduction to kill bottom people, instead of sterilizing them or convincing to not have babies. This is evil, nazi and immoral, and I listed better methods than this if somehow the bottom person has a child, we might sterilize the child from early age so that this child doesn't have children However, the major thing is, how do we define the bottom people. The capitalist system, selects bottom people as people who are not oligarchs, people who didn't inherit wealth, people who do not earn much money from capitalists, so they are not useful to capitalists. Under capitalist system, people like scientists, philosophers, historians, animal shelter volunteers/employees etc. are worthless and should be genocided. People like vegans who volunteer to help sick and abandoned animals are worth zero or less to a capitalist, under capitalist system, because a capitalist doesn't extract much profits from this activity. Some scientists are valuable for them (capitalists), like a scientists who can design new drug (that will not treat the disease but will require sick person to take the drug forever) so capitalist can profit from the drug. Capitalists do not value anything that has true value, like art and philosophy, they only value things like material goods, concrete (apartments). They are animals, or more primitive than animals. We have to define bottom / non-bottom people in different ways. But the system shouldn't be rule based, but point based. So if you have a genetic disease or you are fat, you will get negative points, but you can have other good qualities about you that will outweigh the negative points. Positive points can be given from your talents and contribution to society, especially if you are notable inventor, scientist, philosopher, state official, famous artist or quality artist etc., and from your occupation, doctor would get more points than a taxi driver. Being permanently unemployed and "parasite", alone, does not automatically qualify you to sterilization, because such people can contribute in other ways, they can be volunteers at animal shelters, amateur journalists, open source software developers. So that what you do outside of money/work, also counts towards your score. Negative points should be given to psychopaths and exploitative people, like capitalists. Criminals can also get negative points but it should depend on type and amount of crimes they did. The system that I propose, to prevent weak and bad people from reproducing, it will save us from degeneration of society, from losing to capitalists, from mass suffering and famine, from collapse of state and becoming a jungle. And we will stop the circle of "weak times make strong men, strong men create strong times, strong times create weak men", we can break this and keep good times infinitely long. Eugenics are controversial but they are necessary and I have shown some ethical ways to implement eugenics. Justice System Prisons for most prisoners should be very high quality. People do crimes due to genes and situation they got involved in. It doesn't mean we should let them do crimes and not have any penalty, what it means we should isolate them in prisons but not torture them. Prisons should have many activities, prisoners should listen to music, watch TV, read books, study, play games, call their family, eat food, train muscles, do sports, write books and diary, talk with other prisoners, masturbate to porn, play video games. When a prisoner is in prison he cannot commit much more crimes. This is enough. No need to punish them more or torture. What if people will commit more crime because the prisons are luxurious and comfortable? Then: increase the length of sentences sterilize (some of) them so they don't spread criminality genes Luxury prisons still have the function of isolation - when someone is in the prison he cannot commit more crimes (except sometimes in the prison against prisoners or prison guards). When you do not destroy mafias quickly, they will grow to large size and they will be too big and powerful to destroy them. Examples of such mafias are the jewish mafia and capitalistic mafia. Or human mafia - human mafia that decided to exploit and kill, eat other animals (other than humans). Stealing from the rich should be much less punished than stealing from the poor. When a rich person loses $1000 this is almost nothing for him, but when a poor people loses $1000 this is huge for him, he won't afford to buy food and medicines for this month. In capitalistic nations it's the opposite (in justice system), because rich people control the law and government. But there should be minor punishment from stealing from the rich, if at all. Rape punishment, should depend on whether female victim was virgin (higher punishment) whether female victim is married (higher punishment) whether female victim is a whore (lower punishment) whether male rapist will accept to marry the victim (lower punishment or no punishment) male on male rape should have very high punishment if victim was not homosexual Organized crime. The justice system should focus on mafias and organized crime, punishment should be extreme. If a capitalist hires a hitman to kill a journalist/whistleblower/scientist/witness, he should get lifetime prison or lifetime torture. The crimes of capitalists have horrible results on our societies. The real organized crime is run by glowniggers (such as CIA in america) and by capitalists. Diversity and race-mixing Should we have a lot of race mixing to create one race of gnomes/mutts that live everywhere around the world? No. This is what the (((globalists))) want but this is dumb and evil. They call it a "diversity" but it is the opposite of diversity. The real diversity is when you have different people, races, cultures, in various places in the world. You have Japanese people, Indian people, Eskimo people, Spanish, Slavs, Negros, Latinos, Chinese. They are each different and they evolved to fit into their geographical region. For example, Negros have black skin to protect them from strong sun in central Africa. Diversification of races, genes, cultures has many benefits to the world. If we had some kind of disease or pandemic around the world, some races could be immune or have a better health outcomes. If we have only one mutt race, then just one disease can kill the whole population. Another benefit of various races and cultures is that traveling or even browsing the internet is actually interesting, you can meet someone different from you and from your country. It is better when there is many races of humans and they mostly live in their region but we should allow some special cities or countries where for example, scientists from all regions would come and live, work together on some big projects. You can say, that sometimes race mixing produces not bad result. But the thing is, with race mixing, over time, they will be no different races anymore. And there will be no diversity. There will be a single mutt race. And such race will be also susceptible for extinction, because there will be small variety in genes. So we should keep the current races on earth: germanic race, latino race, slavic race, asian race, indian race, negro race, middle east race. Well, maybe without germanic race because they are nazis. And actually, I use the word "race" but I don't believe in human "races" - we don't have races, we have species. For example, Negros and Spanish are a different species. Of course, we don't have to jump to conclusion to kill other species because they are different to us. Indigenous people, we should keep them alive, in some kind of wild place, just like we have places for wild animals. This includes Negros. But we shouldn't have too many of them, just some to keep them alive for scientific purposes, genetic diversity, historical, tourism purposes. We made a mistake in the past and we gave Negros buildings, guns, cars. This was a big mistake. We should keep Negros on trees, they should eat bananas, like in the past. We made harm to the Negros, just like we did to Australia natives. We forced wild humans to live in cities and go to work, but they are not designed for this, they didn't evolve for this. They were better off in the wild. Well, it could be argued that all humans were better off in the wild. Modern times and technology are horrible for humans, we are not happy. Humans were happier when they worked for their local community and tribe, not in the office or factory for Mr. Shekelstein. We shouldn't keep too many of indigenous people because their economic output is low and they won't help to achieve big projects and things like space projects, space colonization, inventing new technologies. But there is some value and usefulness of having indigenous people around the Earth. We should keep races segregated. Negros in Africa, Asians in Asia, etc. But at same time we could allow inter-race cooperation in things like inventions, philosophy, math, have brilliant people of all races work together on something big. However, I am not sure if cooperation is better than competition. When we had cold "war" period, this was the golden period in space exploration. Huge progress. After the cold "war" ended, the space exploration also ended, it was dead. Now, when we have a start of China-USA "war", space exploration and progress is coming back. You could say, the reason we had this big progress in space exploration, is because we just allocated a lot of funds, resources, people for it. But the thing is, during peace time, without competition, we don't spend funds on such projects like space exploration. We only spend on it when there is competition between two races (germanic-americans vs slavs, now germanic-americans vs chinese-asians). So, maybe even if we had one world supercommunist state, we should keep races segregated and compete in areas like space exploration. But not compete in wars, wars do not create big things, they destroy and cause mass suffering. Race-mixing can be used to make some race extinct. This is what they are doing in America, Negros are about 10-15% of people there, they want it to be 0%, but they can't just shot all of them in the head, so they promote race-mixing so that Negros in America are mixed with whites and latinos, to stop Negros from existing in America. Settlements and transportation We might allow cities, suburbs and villages. People from suburbs and villages will be allowed to own a car or even multiple cars. City people maybe also could be allowed, but the cars would be not in front of their apartment, but in parking outside city center (park & ride), so that if you live in center of big city or a bit farther away, your main transportation will be bicycle, taxi, bus, tram, train, metro, electric bicycle, rental bicycle, car sharing. Individual cars will be banned or restricted from entering city center. Currently, there is too many cars in the city, they pollute, they are loud, they use space (for roads and parking). But outside of city center, maybe there could be less restrictions. Also, cars in the city should be driving slowly, on city roads that have pedestrian crossings, it should be maximum 30 km/h. Isolated roads (like city ring road) would be allowed to go faster. Inner roads between houses, also in suburbs, should also be 30 km/h. But there should be faster roads that connect villages and suburbs with the city. If a village person wants to access city center, he should drive his car to a special parking close to the city, then move to a public transport or bicycle to get into the city center. We could allow some exceptions for using cars in the city, for example people who are self employed as plumbers or other work where they have to go to place with tools (if self employment will be allowed). The cities could be divided into 3 areas, outside part (everybody can drive a car there), medium part (cars restricted and limited to 30 km/h), city center (no private cars at all). Transport - SUVs. SUVs should be illegal, in the entire world. SUVs/crossovers: they murder pedestrians, accident with a SUV is more often deadly they are ugly and fat, they are for fat people like Americans, horrible looking. This makes that when you go outside in the city, and there are cars, the environment looks ugly. You feel bad they are heavy, inefficient, waste fuel they are also dangerous for their drivers as they roll over due to high center of gravity So they should be banned, forever. How to ban them? 1. Have a commission that will vote which car is a SUV which isn't (not good...). 2. Ban SUVS using laws and mathematical formulas. It is possible to calculate if a car is a SUV using mathematical formulas and/or machine learning algorithm. For example, we could go to the front of the car, then put measuring device half meter into direction of rear of the car. Then the device would check height of the hood from the ground. SUVs have higher hood than cars. But this would also ban cargo vans and buses - so we need to unban these somehow. We can find more mathematical formulas to ban SUVs. It's definitely possible. Transport - car sharing and car ownership. The concept of few people or families sharing a car is retarded. One man gets a car at 7:30 and drives a car to work at 8:00. What if someone else needs a car at 7:45? The shared car could have AI driving and drive to someone else who needs a car. But this would waste fuel and the problem is a lot of people need car at 7-10 in the morning, while almost nobody needs a car at night. And what if a shared car comes to your house and you enter it, and it has someone's sperm, urine, or trash, bottles of beer laying around that still have the beer inside? And such shared car would quickly achieve large mileage and would have to be replaced. There is enough wealth and materials in the world, to give a car to everybody that needs it, one car per family (sometimes two) living in suburbs and villages, and restriction for people living in cities. But, shared cars could be in the city, for driving around city, and to be alternative to taxi, because with a taxi, you need to pay a taxi driver for his work, with a shared car, you are the driver so the cost of transport can be lower. Shared autonomic car could also be shared by husband and wife (if we allow women to drive). Bicycle lanes/roads should be everywhere, like in the Netherlands and Denmark. Bicycle lanes make that more people want to cycle, because cycling on road with cars is dangerous. We can also increase taxation of cars to push more people to use bicycles. Electric cars are bad and not the future. Electric cars: are heavy because of heavy batteries after few years they need battery replaced and it costs half as much as new car they do not have any sound, any explosions, they are soulless and robotic during wars or power grid failures, they will be useless they are very slow to refuel they have crap range they require rare earth metals that are only in few countries and that are extracted by slaves who are paid 25 cents per hour So, should we use petrol and fuel oil cars, right now? No, because we will soon run out of oil. Oil took million of years to be made, and we use it in 100-200 years. So, what instead? Ethanol. You can grow ethanol using land and sun. There is an issue - that ethanol production needs land, and this competes with land used for producing food. It could make food more expensive. But there is a solution: ban producing and eating meat, which will release a lot of land used for meat depopulate/sterilize few billions of people, which will lower the demand for food and fuel Animal rights Humans are a type of animal. All animals including humans are basically the same thing. All animals have consciousness, they can feel pleasure and suffering. We are required to care for the animals, we should help them and never harm them. Killing and eating animals should be strongly punished, with years of prison. We should also protect wild animals - but this means we should kill predators and protect herbivores from being murdered by other animals. Vegan or vegetarian diet should be mandatory, to all humans and animals on Earth. However, I am not sure if ethical vegetarian diet is possible, if not then we all have to become vegans. I have one idea that, we could keep big animals free roaming, then take some of their blood (not enough for them to feel bad), then drink this blood (we, humans). But I am not sure if this is possible. I have read about eating eggs or milk and the consensus is that it's not ethical for many reasons. Pets. Pets should be illegal, because: cats go outside and they murder innocent birds and rats cats and dogs are meat eaters pets that live in apartments are suffering, they live in prisons dogs are aggressive, they attack and murder humans and kids, they are loud people own pets instead of children, it lowers fertility rate Some exceptions could be, like a blind person having trained dog. I am unsure about other pets, like fish. Genetic engineering to convert cats to vegan lifestyle, would be too hard, not possible. Genocide Genocide and forced sterilization of large population. There are situations where genocide might be justified and good. For example, when Germans started world war, when they enslaved people and murdered millions, maybe after we defeated them, maybe we should have genocided them. Entire Germanic race (including Dutch, Scandinavians, Austria etc.), or Germans (Germany), or at least people involved in Nazi Germany. It is unknown if they did holocaust (it is not proven, but not disproved), but even if they didn't do holocaust they did a lot of evil and suffering. Hitler might have not know about holocaust and he had good views like animal rights but most of his team were evil people (monsters) and they should have been genocided or sterilized. Another example of monsters are, the Japanese people. They are similar or worse than Germanic nazis. Read about Japanese war crimes and Unit 731. So, maybe we should have genocided entire Germans and Japanese, after winning World War II. Or at least large part of their population, involved in huge harm and suffering. Genocide is needed in such cases, because German and Japanese still have the genes and culture that made them do this things. And the worst monsters of them, they had children and spread their genes. They are "ticking bombs", they are still capable of repeating what they did, if there will be proper circumstances. So genocide or mass forced sterilization, might be good, justified and ethical, it can prevent mass suffering and atrocities. Arts, culture, entertainment The capitalists destroyed all art, music, video games, movies, books. They are now creating the dumbest shit for the dumbest person. Instead, we should subsidize higher quality art and entertainment. For example, in TV, we could ban ads and instead give money to TV channels based on their viewership. However, there would be multipliers. If TV is playing some dumb goywood movie, the multiplier would be 0.5x or 1.0x, if TV is playing documentary or science, the multiplier would be much bigger, like 4x or 5x. This would motivate TV to make higher quality programs instead of soap operas and movies. In radio and music, we should limit the number of pop radio stations and we should have similar mechanics like in TV, that radio stations are paid for listeners but with multipliers, if they play classical or ambient music they would get paid more per listener than when playing pop or rap. Gaming consoles and personal computers should have limits in them, how long you can play video games. There should a weekly hour limit, how many hours you can play. Video games are addictive and we need to limit time people spend on them. We need people to have other hobbies too. Gambling in video games with real money, such as loot boxes, should be fully banned. Gacha games also should be banned. Mobile video games should be fully banned, they are extremely dumb and for the dumbest goys on the planet. Also, people play them everywhere outside the house, this shouldn't be allowed. We need QUALITY. We should maximize quality, of music, paintings, video games, TV, books, everything. Currently in the world we have the opposite, (((they))) are doing everything to destroy the quality, they want to turn entire world into a goyslop. We need to push ourselves to produce maximum quality of products. Capitalism Capitalists are like whales. To one capitalist being alive, he needs to exploit, kill, enslave 1000 poor people. Just like whales need to eat 1000 fishes per day. This is ineffective and they have to be stopped. One capitalist uses as much resources as 10 000 people in Africa. We cannot afford to keep them alive. I propose capitalist extinction. When capitalists gather all resources and wealth, the rest people do not have them. Capitalism. Under capitalism, we are giving 90% of earth wealth and resources to 70 year olds. Is this a good allocation? How many children do 70 year olds make? How much do they work? How much inventions and science theories do they make? Capitalism is temporary and unstable system. However, it doesn't end up in communism, like Marx predicted, but it ends up in feudalism. Supercommunism is the opposite of capitalism and feudalism. Capitalist honeymoon phase. When poor countries first introduce capitalism, they often benefit in the beginning, there is more food and goods for the population. This is the honeymoon phase. After this phase, the real capitalism begins. If you do not belong to the wealthiest 10%, you won't even afford a single apartment. And it will be even worse in the future. Capitalism is a trap for people and nations that prefer to get one candy right now and then end up in hell, than to get much bigger prize but after longer time and effort. Not only that, but sometimes there isn't even a honeymoon phase in capitalism. Example of this is Russia, that was never better during capitalism than it was in communism. Capitalism is more than system, more than ideology, it's a religion. If capitalist can get profits from murder, slavery, human organ extraction, and earn a single dollar from this, then he will do this because according to his religion this is good. This is why we have to stop the capitalism. The capitalism does not provide better outcome for society than communism in the long term. it provides only short term "benefits" such as flooding society with unhealthy hamburgers, fluid jew (soda, water+sugar), cheap products that break after 3 years and end up in landfills, food poisoned with toxic pesticides, cheap clothing (produced by slaves in third world Asian countries), etc. And this period with "benefits" is only temporary, to convince people in the world to switch to capitalism and give capitalists full power over government/politics, media, education etc. Once the capitalist take full control, then they start the next step / final goal. In final goal, the capitalists do not need to give any carrot/benefit to the goyim, they create a feudalism, where poor people die from starvation and have to fight to get a job from capitalist, in which they will not even afford food. the capitalists collude to keep wages as low as possible, they murder all journalists and politicians who try to implement any other system, they order police to kill protesters, they make automated factories, AI etc. and they don't need workers anymore, they genocide people because they use resources like food, they buy all land and housing so poor people are homeless, they stop selling products to workers (like cars), The essence of capitalism = Myanmar fraud factories. Implementation & stability How to implement supercommunism and keep it stable? In various countries and places, supercommunism could be implemented step by step, from a democratic capitalism, by slowly boiling the frog, while in others it could be more aggressive and quick, with coup and take over of state. If the military and police will not obey new supercommunist ruler, we could send military from other supercommunist state. If we want to implement supercommunism slowly, then in the beginning we have to compete with capitalistic countries. Due to this, we cannot instantly implement full socialism. Eugenics/depopulation, this we could also not do in the beginning, but we could do depopulation to our capitalistic enemies, for example with "vaccines". We also need sanctions against countries who compete with us in unfair ways, such as by exploiting workers. What if one country will implement supercommunism, while another country will keep exploiting people and having advantage because of that? What a supercommunists could do in theory: sanctions sabotage military invasion poisoning their water and food developing nuclear weapon and using it against capitalist country, without any warning, targeting their politic and economic centers financing coups, doing coups with military personnel, taking over the country Who should rule the supercommunism? It could be some kind of dictator or a group of people (that could even vote on issues, decisions). But they cannot be elected, because elections and democracy do not work. If elections will be allowed, people will vote for people who will allow them to murder animals, and for people who can manipulate them with elections, eventually we will get capitalism, feudalism, exploitation. All democratic countries are capitalistic and they are a colony of USA. Oligarchs in such countries fund media and brainwash people to vote for more oligarchy. So democracy has to be stopped. A semi-democracy, where party members will vote for dictator and other main people, might be better than democracy, but it also has problems, the party members might want to demand from dictator that he will give them (party members) wealth, profits, privileges, and they will vote for such dictator that will do this. But if we fully brainwash population with supercommunism ideology, it might lower such motivations to vote for someone who will make oligarchy. And who should be the dictator of supercommunism? I think I have the best skills to be a dictator, I should be the dictator of supercommunism. But I am open for propositions for other candidates. People have to be brainwashed at schools, TV, media, games etc., so they comply with supercommunism values. Brainwashed everywhere, from birth to death. Alternative though, if allowed, should be allowed in some smaller groups, like scientists and philosophers, historians, but not in the public, to general population. General population can only be allowed of new thoughts and views, only if they are first approved by the state. Philosophers could send their ideas to the state, and state could implement some of them. How to prevent supercommunism from degenerating into oligarchy? Maybe eugenics could help, if we stop people that have oligarch and psychopath genes, if we stop them from existing. Organizations that spread capitalism by force, like CIA and USA, have to be nuked, or brainwashed into supercommunism. Supercommunism should have a nuclear first policy. That means "attack your opponent (capitalist) with nuclear weapons, without warning", "attack first, before being attacked". I mean, when there will be still capitalistic countries, during transitory period. If you are a member of socialist party in democratic country, do not openly advocate supercommunism, it might be too controversial and not marketable. Instead, take some of the policies, that you could sell/market to voters. The other, controversial policies in this book, hide them from the public, but believe in them and spread privately to other members of your organization. You can even hide less controversial policies, and you can pretend to be capitalist, just to get into power and then you can implement socialist policies, and then try to stop democracy and take over country, make dictatorship, and then implement all policies from this book. A problem, risk: if there is just one central world government, there is a risk, that the government will go into some bad direction and there is no competition and no other voices to change it's direction. And if something bad happens to world government, if will have effect on entire earth population. One solution to this, is to have something like states or superstates. A superstate would be something like: north america, latin america, africa, europe, middle east, asia. Australia would belong to north america or europe. Europe could be split between slavic (eastern) and western europe. And within superstates there would be states, similar to current countries. And what is the purpose of superstates and states? They would have some (small) autonomy over laws and rules, there would be differences between them and some kind of competition too. However, all states and superstates would be controlled by supercommunist world government and the main ideology and rules would be the same for every place on earth. If some state or group of people would ignore or drop some main rule, they should be stopped and strongly punished. If we have multiple countries, that compete with each other and are independent, then every country will try to exploit their population more, to win competition with another country. Every country will pollute and extract oil and resources, as much as possible. To win. Even if there will be a country that cares about the environment and workers, this country will be disadvantaged compared to countries that don't care about environment and workers. This is the truth and theory that is in the Ted Kaczynski book. Due to this issue, we need a solution, a world government - supercommunism. Then we don't have to compete against each other by exploiting workers, animals, Earth, we can enforce workers rights and caring about the environment, in the whole planet. And before supercommunism takes over this planet, we can put heavy sanctions against countries who pollute and exploit people, or start wars against them. Supercommunists shouldn't be afraid to aggressively use nuclear weapons to enforce supercommunism everywhere, because: 1. Capitalists are weak ideologically, they are not ready to destroy the Earth and die for their views. but supercommunists are ready. 2. It's better to destroy life and earth than to allow capitalists to exist and enslave everybody. If we allow capitalists to exist, we will all end up in Myanmar fraud factories. America used nuclear weapons against Japan, but the bombs were weak and only destroyed two cities. Also, America was not afraid of retaliation. So, if some countries will not submit to supercommunism, and will protect capitalists, we have to nuke the countries to burned earth. Capitalists are weak morally ideologically, after we start nuking them, they will not reply with nukes and destroying the earth, but they will submit. Abortion Abortion is a hard problem because there are strong arguments for abortion and against abortion. Arguments for abortion: children who have genetic defects would have suffering if they are alive, they will be also a burden for the parents and society it is evil to force woman to give a birth if she was raped, also she will become a single mother after this, which is bad pregnancy and childbirth affects the female body, it is very taxing, what if a woman doesn't want to experience this? if a child is not wanted, but woman is forced to give a birth, is she going to love the baby? Arguments against abortion: if abortion is allowed, this enables women to whore out, fuck with random men, because if she gets pregnant she can just murder the baby murder. Abortion is a type of murder, because human life does not start after birth, it starts much earlier, during pregnancy, a child is developing over time, not during childbirth if a woman doesn't want a baby, there are options, she can give the child to someone else rather than kill it why should a woman decide if to abort the baby, when a baby also has a father, what about his opinion? What about the state, that should protect children, also the ones that aren't born yet? So what to do, how to decide? I think that countries that fully ban abortion are wrong, and countries that fully legalizes abortion (abortion just because woman wants it) are also wrong. I think we need a compromise in this, abortion just because woman wants it should be illegal, but we should allow abortion in more justified cases, like if a child has genetic diseases or if a woman could die during childbirth. We might also allow abortion in case of rape, otherwise rape will be a valid strategy to pass your genes and also, if the rapist is unknown, then the child won't have father, it will be single mother with a child, which is bad. LGBT & SJW LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual). There are people who claim that they are sexually attracted to same sex or both sexes, there are people that are male but they feel female or the opposite. Are they some kind of deviants? Maybe, I am not sure. But they are not evil just because they feel this way and they shouldn't be punished or killed for this. But should they be given some special rights like marriage? We could give that but we don't have to. It's not that important for the society. But transsexuals, this is different. While I think of them the same, I do not think they are evil in any way, but the so called "gender change surgery" is a farce and extremely evil, the surgery is done by psychopaths also called (((doctors))). Transsexual people are their victims. The people that ever did this "surgery" to someone, they should receive strong punishment. Gender change surgery is physically impossible, males and females have different skeletons, brains, hormones, everything. But transsexuals should not be persecuted, but their (((doctors))) who harmed them should be persecuted. There is also a thing "LGBT propaganda", (((they))) put LGBT into every movie and video game. This really lowers quality of the media, I am opposed to this propaganda. LGBT people can co-exist with straight people, but I don't want to have LGBT everywhere in front of my face. Enough. SJW (Social Justice Warrior) religion was invented by the capitalists after the Occupy Wall Street movement. CIA invented and promoted this SJW movement to defeat Occupy Wall Street. They want to keep goys divided and fighting each other, rather than cooperate against capitalists. Other Jewery has to be outlawed, like in Islam. That means that: loans should be illegal or restricted, and only state bank would give them housing loans could be allowed, if house ownership will be allowed loans need to have low interest rate (if there will be any loans at all) scamming will be outlawed the sizes of products will be regulated by law, a package of rice will have to be 500g / 1000g / 2500g / 5000g. Capitalistic sizes like 900g, 450g, will be banned the production of most or all products might be in the hands of the state Should private companies be allowed? I see 3 options: 1. Not allowed, only state companies. 2. Only tiny companies or self employed small business allowed, while big things like car production, computer production, energy production will be in the hands of the state. 3. Allowed (in some sectors), but they have to submit to state, like in China, not that oligarchs/corporations control the state like in USA and Europe. And companies would be heavily regulated, and all jewery or worker exploitation, consumer scamming would be heavily punished. Those 3 options have various pros/cons, the best option might depend on nation/race. The third option gives biggest potential for economic growth, but it gives less control to the state, there is a danger that owners of private companies will gain enough power to defeat the communist government. If we had system 1 or 2, then instead of business owners you need state appointed managers. I think they should get their salary based on the results of the state company, how good it does. But we should focus on long term results, not short term (like capitalists do). Also, if the manager did break laws to achieve the results, he should lost part of his salary or he should get a harsh fine. If you restrict/ban ownership of excessive goods like 5 houses, 5 cars etc. then you remove corruption. Why would someone (like local politician) accept a bribe, if he will not be able to buy anything extra he has? He already has a house, a car, home cinema, bicycles, and he cannot buy a second/third house. Ban goyphones. Goyphones (called "smartphones" by the capitalists) are horrible invention that makes people dumber and controlled. The capitalists use goyphones to brainwash goys, control them, record their conversations, make the goys even dumber. Instead, we should have state produced mobile phone that will: have calling and text messages (but it will be expensive to call and text) have navigation and maps won't have video games (you should play them on home consoles and PC) probably won't have web browser have ability to check public transport schedule, how to travel somewhere The phone would be designed and produced by the state. It would be one or few models. The models would be replaced with new model rarely, every 5 years, and the old models would continue working and receive updates. Free speech. We could have two tier system: goys / dumb people - wouldn't have free speech because they don't have any interesting to say journalists/scientists/philosophers/thinkers etc. - would have Or, we could have free speech for all. This is simpler as we don't have to choose who has the free speech. Criticism of supercommunism - might be allowed, because it will help to improve it. But when someone tries to stop supercommunism or weaken it, he should be stopped and punished. Supercommunism will be the final system, and other systems will not be allowed. Incels / single men. State should organize events that would make single men meet women and bond. Also, there should be state prostitutes and brothels. People could buy the services with money, or unmarried men would be given coupons to use prostitutes once per two months. Poisonous gases and chemicals like perfumes have to be illegal, especially in public transport, also in the workplace. Just stop producing and selling them. Encryption, chat encryption, anonymity: should they be allowed or banned? The simple answers are "allow all encryption" or "ban all encryption". However I propose more nuanced approach. My proposition is to ban all "one click encryption" and "one click anonymity", tools that are very easy and can be used by dumb and evil people to make evil things without being caught. Instead, we should only allow advanced, hard to use tools (for encryption and anonymity), to prevent them from being used by goys, to only allow high intellect people to have anonymity and encryption. Petty criminals and drug dealers shouldn't have encryption and anonymity. This does not benefit the society. But scientists, journalists, philosophers, computer experts? They should have, so that they can release something important but controversial, something that would put their life in danger. One click encryption should instead be made by the communist state as a honeypot, to catch retards and evil people. Depopulation. Do we need to depopulate, lower the amount of humans on Earth? We don't need, but we could. Agriculture on earth could easily support 10 billions of humans. But it will be better if we have less people than that. Too many people = conflicts, wars, pollution. But if we make amount of humans too low, it might be harder to achieve big things like space exploration, colonization, science, philosophy etc., but, maybe we need to lower the population on Earth to about 5 billions of people. We should lower the population of the Negros. Not all of them but most. They don't use much resources but at same time there are no benefits from having them alive. We don't have Negro philosophers, scientists, inventors. They will never achieve anything. But some amount of Negros should be kept, in Africa, just as some kind of race and genetic diversity of humans on Earth. We should also depopulate nazis, such as germanic and japanese races. Euthanasia. Not only Euthanasia should be legal, but there should be mandatory, forced euthanasia in some cases. Example would be if someone has Alzheimer Disease. Allowing people with Alzheimer to live and suffer, this is a violation of human rights, of people with Alzheimer and their caretakers. Allowing someone with this disease to live is immoral, it is moral to euthanize such person. There is a problem with euthanasia, that family or state could make pressure on old people to take euthanasia even if they don't want it. This is a real problem. Suicide is related to euthanasia. People who do suicide should not be criticized or punished. But we should try to prevent people from doing suicide for impulsive reasons. But if someone wants suicide for years, we should allow him state euthanasia. Such people should be required to have some psychological and psychiatric consultation first. Labor unions. Capitalists destroyed them. However, not everything about labor unions is great. One thing I hate in them is that they make barriers to enter the job for new people. This shouldn't be legal. Barriers to enter jobs should be as minimal as possible. A surgeon might need to study before getting the job, but in most jobs it shouldn't be required to study, shouldn't be required to have higher education. Another problem in labor unions is that, some companies have them while some don't. The company that has them can be disadvantaged compared to the one that doesn't have labor union. Because of this I am thinking of a different system, where we don't have labor union per each workplace/company, but we have labor union dedicated to every sector of the economy / type of job. We should also have a minimum wage set for every type of job. The word "smart" should be illegal. All products containing this word should be banned. "Smartphones" should be instead called "goyphones".. Nepotism. Nepotism, also called "networking" by the capitalists, is a horrible thing that has huge negative effects on entire world. Nepotism is the opposite of meritocracy. People get employment, inheritance, money, power, not because of their skills, talent, work, but they get them because they had a luck to be born in specific family or they had luck to meet someone and know some person. All nepotism should be banned and punished with very high penalty. Food. Unhealthy, processed food should be either banned, or it should be allowed for eugenics purposes (processed foods would contain chemicals that stop fertility). People should eat meals cooked at home by the wife, meals made from unprocessed healthy foods. However, restaurants can be legal, they are useful for people who need to eat something in the city, away from the home. Taxes. We need to tax the rich and distribute to the poor, so the poor become more wealthy. But who is rich? We shouldn't have high income taxes. Income taxes are paid by the poor, not by the rich. We need to tax the wealth. And what is the wealth? land buildings shares/ownership of companies, corporations vehicles bonds free cash Income taxes should be low so that poor and young people can earn money to buy wealth. After they have wealth, then we can tax them. We could also have "sin tax" such as taxing unhealthy food, slop - assuming such things will even be legal. Ecology & nature. I support ecology. But real ecology, not fake ecology like the global warming religion. Pollution is bad and we should lower it where possible, but we need factories, we need products, and they require some pollution. It is good to place factories far away from concentrated populations. We can also produce less low quality products, instead we can make quality things that last for decades, this is the real ecology. Global warming and CO2. I am not saying global warming is fake, it seems real and humans do contribute to it, however nothing big will happen from increased CO2. Yes, some ice will melt and water levels will increase. And so what? We can migrate people living on such islands to other places. Using coal, natural gas, oil, there is nothing bad in this. But there are some issues: safety/independence. Places like Europe have to import their oil. This is unsafe because what if some war or conflict will happen and countries will stop selling oil to Europe? it took millions of years to produce gas/coal/oil, while we are consuming it at extreme speed, we can run out of it soon, we won't have those resources for future generations funding regimes and wars. Natural resources like gas/coal/oil are mostly owned by various regimes, when you buy from them you fund them, they can then use the money in evil way including wars Also, Europe is retarded about their CO2 religion, they are lowering their CO2 while other countries like India, China, America are increasing CO2 output, few times more than Europe is reducing. Schools. Schools are basically prisons and they torture children. I am not advocating to close all schools but we should improve them. Children should be allowed to choose what subjects they like and only learn those things. If someone is interested in something from early age, let him focus on that thing. We should also train people for manual jobs (trades) like construction, mechanics, we shouldn't try to make a science professor out of every child. Some people just don't have the genes for it. Also, schools should be more fun, there should be more trips outside school building, teachers should show some experiments during classes, not just boring talk. Tattoos. Another horrible thing in modern society. People with tattoos should be sterilized and they should work as prostitutes and prison guards. When you make a tattoo on yourself, you mark yourself as the beast, and as a goy. Drugs. Tobacco and ethanol, they should be either banned or we should put chemicals into them that will make people infertile. What about other drugs? Stimulants have their uses, they are used for ADHD people to make them more organized and focused, but also non-ADHD people might get something useful from them. Psychedelic drugs and mushrooms can be useful to make long lasting change in someone's mind, like in depressed people. Marijuana, I think it's a bad drug because it makes people lazy, however it also has good effects, makes people less aggressive and competitive. Religion. Should be legal? I think, yes. But we should promote religions that are good for the society while we should persecute religions that make people bad, lazy, evil. Author & license Author: Michał Oksiński City: Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski Nationality: Polish License: distributing this book and text on the internet for free is allowed. If you want to print and sell it as book, you need a permission from the author. Year: as book, written in 2026, portions written in 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026. 1