We are advocates of both individual liberty and collective order. We believe that attaining the right balance between these things is the key to solving the problems of the world (and that this balance is fundamentally left-wing). We also advocate equality and social mobility.
Political systems in use today are largely inadequate. Democracy has proven a disaster, just another way for rich, privileged people to assume rulership, except that now, we get to choose which rich asshole we're ruled by!
We are against most mainstream religions, those manipulators of persons. They have had centuries to create a good world if that's what they were going to do, but they have not. They have more followers than ever, yet the world seems increasingly baffling and overwhelming. They are given tax exemption in many countries, but what do they provide society with? Paranoia, hatred of sin, love of blind faith and blind obedience, contempt for education, intellectualism, and knowledge, active contempt for the autonomy of individuals, senseless violence invariably related to the destruction of the sinful, absurd teachings that straight up don't make sense, and endless other vile things that no modern society should endorse.
You will see that the most fanatical supporters of Abrahamic religions actively hate modern culture. Women are all sluts, they say. Men are all senseless, they say. What kind of culture would accept religions that despise it? If you're tolerant of people who aren't tolerant of you, then you're simply inviting your own destruction.
These days, whenever you say anything critical of religion, you're branded as Christophobic, Islamophobic, whatever-phobic. Labels are just labels: extremely reductive things that only serve to muddy the waters. Anyone who pays attention to what we have to say cannot doubt that mainstream religions are an obstacle to a better future.
We need new, healthy religions that don't claim you're an evil person without them. We need religions that don't promote anti-intellectualism and mindlessness. We need religions that don't advocate for mindless, senseless violence against anyone who disagrees with them about the divine order.
We need religions that advocate for education, creativity, and productivity.
Any non-psychological approach to running the world will inevitably fail. How much do politicians understand of the human psyche? Obviously not much, since they still believe, after all these years, that the "war on drugs" is working. We need a different approach. We need leaders who have an understanding of psychology so as to understand the effect that policies and changes will have on their people. In the past, England came close to civil war several times because its monarch didn't know what they were doing, and until activists and revolutionaries took it upon themselves to act, politicians upheld slavery and misogyny in America.
The goals of politicians have nothing to do with making radical change to this terrible world; instead, they exist to largely maintain the status quo. They make a few policy changes and think that's enough to change a country. It's not.
The world will only change once psychology is treated as what it really is: the most invaluable tool to someone who wants to understand people. Everyone should have an education in psychology; it should be compulsory study in schools. Someone who isn't versed in psychology (at least to a basic degree) won't understand anyone around them or themselves and, frankly, might become a problem. Psychology can help us to become better, well-rounded people.
Politics at the moment is focused on combating the symptoms of crime and inequality rather than the source. Don't like inequality? There's a very simple solution: tax the rich! Don't like crime? There's a very simple solution: give everyone a good education, ensure that underground cultures need not exist (i.e., make people satisfied with their lives and chances within the law), stop making crimes more dangerous with zero tolerance policies and look instead at why people commit crimes in the first place.
All of a society's problems come down to its people. Therefore, it's the greatest scandal of our time that those in power commonly have no clue about them. Shouldn't political experts also necessarily be psychology experts? One thing's for certain: democracy's hopelessly inept leaders cannot stay if anything is to be done about the fundamental problems with society. Throughout history, people have largely been saved by peasants who were brave enough to tell things as they really were - not by their leaders, who sat on their hands and did nothing, often while their people starved or were engulfed by disease. Their attitude was, "Well, I'm okay, so why should I do anything about it?"
Things are no different today, except that politicians will simply pretend to give a shit - they have to, otherwise they would never again be elected. Currently, in the UK, the Prime Minister is Boris Johnson, who is a Tory (Conservative) par excellence: he hasn't done a single thing about crime or inequality ever since he took office. The UK remains the same as it ever was. As for America, that's even worse only because it has had an even more inept leader for the past four years. Trump wasn't a cataclysm, as many people feared; instead, he's the personification of ineptitude. What has changed in America thanks to Trump's presidency (which he still clings onto)? What has Trump accomplished over four years? He's divided the country politically, alienated half of America, alienated the rest of the world entirely ("America first," anyone?), stirred up the political waters a little. So what? That's just what Trump did to make you think he was actually making a change. In fact, nothing significant has changed. Why? Because Trump has had too much to profit from the state of America. You think a lavish lifestyle, obsessive golfing, and businesses raking it in aren't sufficient motivation for a psychopath to leave the world in ruins?
The Leadership Paradox
Which politician have you heard speak thus? Which leader have you heard admit that radical change is needed?
By definition, leaders are at the top of the current society, so we have a paradox whereby the people in the best position to do something about an unsatisfactory status quo invariably never will because they benefit too much from it. This, above all things, must be changed. Greedy, selfish people wouldn't be interested in leadership if it involved great personal trials and sacrifice. Moreover, leadership would attract the right kind of person - the person willing to make great sacrifices to benefit the world.
The path to leadership should be a great test of purity and altruism. Why are our leaders not vetted with the utmost care? The wrong leader elected can do immense damage to a country during even one term of office.
Utopia is an incredibly precarious state of society. The smallest series of wrong decisions can send it tumbling from the sky. That's why our current world has absolutely no chance of improving on its own, by way of democratically-elected leaders. Something must be done - by everyone.