TRIBE is our abbreviated protocol for a systematic, generational withdrawal from the globalist machine. While this outlines our core trajectory, it does not represent the full complexity of our mission for change. The transition from state dependency to independence is a multifaceted, generational process- to fully understand it, please study the full, itemised plan below.
A plan to save the World
“What an amazing vision for change! How on Earth do we realise it, then?”
Realising change on the scale of the Sovereign Peace Settlement (SPS) vision cannot be done through traditional political campaigning, lobbying, lawfare, warfare, nor any other lurching overnight changes. Succeeding with it would very much be a generational 'long-game'. It requires a strategy which relies entirely on reaching and inspiring the collective consciousness of a sizeable portion of the global labour force, to utilise a power they already possess.
Critical Mass.
This entire undertaking rests on reaching a 'critical mass' of awake, motivated individuals in key working positions around the world. When enough essential workers- in for example transport, energy, logistics, and manufacturing- agree to a collective, non-violent refusal of duty, the global centralised system will simply halt. Our motto for this is simple, and absolute: “The wheel does not turn without Us”...
It's very important this remains an international effort, otherwise what might happen is only certain territories would be affected by the eventual mass noncompliance that hold the key to realising decentralisation. This could be very bad, if only more peaceful, democratic territories are impacted, as weakening complex defensive infrastructure could leave them open to attack or invasion by aggressive, dictatorial forces. So it's crucial we approach our recruitment/ outreach campaigns with an international attitude from day one- focusing on global trade drivers- to ensure the AJC network is spread evenly. It's also important that we're patient- there's no need/ point in rushing this excessively (this will only agitate and provoke the powers-that-be). We'll return to that point shortly...
---
Plan phase 0: Mindsets
So we've identified the core 'critical mass' objective of our plan. But before any logistics begin, we must first meditate on some fundamental shifts in perspective:
-
Generational Patience: It simply can't be overstated. This undertaking is of such magnitude that no 21st Century person should expect to see the SPS vision fully realised in their lifetime. View it as planting a tree, under whose shade you never expect to sit...
-
Collective willpower: Collective will is the ultimate power, far surpassing that of any single leader or authority. And cumulative actions have far more impact than single decisions. Thus, we must accept that our maximum possible influence will not be a sledgehammer of change, but a gentle nudge in the current of humanity which- when done by vast numbers over generations- leads to profound change.
-
Bravery: While we're not doing anything wrong trying to improve the planet and spread wealth/ power more evenly, unfortunately the global elites may not see it that way. They are likely to be obstructive, as maintaining the status quo benefits them. While discussing large-scale political change is fine and legal in most developed countries, there is no real telling how the elites might change/ reframe the law to weaponise it against us should they begin to perceive AJC as a threat. The risks associated with doing the right thing in this way must simply be accepted, even celebrated- how incredible a life story will yours be, for being brave enough to help pull all this off? How much will your grandchildren look up to you? It's difficult to even fathom (but exciting, too)...
-
Dynamism: The Absolute Justice Collective rejects stubbornness. We must admit when we're wrong, or when something isn't working. This means our plan can't be merely perfunctory- it must stay open to new information, and the World's evolving geopolitical landscape. Our blog and socials are the best way of keeping up with changes, and you can use our contact form to let us know if you've spotted something in our content that doesn't seem right- we'll always listen.
-
Survival-based utilitarianism (SBU): While the SPS vision is based on giving decentralised settlements the autonomy to choose their own outlook and way of life, we do strongly recommend fostering an understanding of survival-based utilitarian ethics before embarking on our shared mission towards realising it. Viewing progress through the lens of maximising happiness and minimising suffering was key to AJC's founder, Jimmy Morris, cultivating the focus, perspective and sense of purpose necessary to getting the ball rolling with it. Jimmy actually wrote a book in 2025 about survival-based utilitarianism- key extracts are available for free on The Old Theory page.
-
Faith: This is crucial for any mission aimed at 'saving the world'. So many aspects of this plan's success are beyond our control. Hope, and optimistic faith- be that in a God, the boundless potential of our network, or simply that there are more good people in the World than bad- is absolutely central to seeing this plan through to the end.
---
Phase 1: The movement's ethical, legal and educational foundations
The first official phase begins by shifting from abstract mindset, to concrete plan.
-
Define our dream society: It's not much use proposing that we start a new society, without being able to clearly articulate how that society will be any different to the previous one. For us, it starts with ethics, and envisaging how those ethics might translate to the laws and practices of a better sovereign community. Once again, we must stress: while each SPS should retain the autonomy to determine their own ethical, legal and governance foundations, the very strong recommendation from AJC is that the one we eventually build bases its outlook on survival-based utilitarianism, secularism, and the rejection of dogma in law. It would also ideally foster an understanding of Life-preserving cognition theory; an evolutionary psychology model proposed by our founder, which aids in both improving mental clarity and distinguishing truth from noise among the everyday. The combined, survival-oriented benefits of all the above would endow a resilience on a genuinely utilitarian SPS that others may lack. You can read more about these fascinating theories on the Old Theory page. (Additionally, the 'contribution balance'- our proposed replacement for commodity money- is definitely worth mentioning in our ingredients list for a better society. We'll come back to the idea shortly.)
-
Information stockpiling: Crucially, we must stockpile practical information and education before the transition, and eventual cessation from central governments. This includes training on nuclear energy systems, information technology, AI, and other core modern infrastructural knowledge, to be stored in both digital and physical formats as a vital safeguard. (The elites definitely won't like this one- but it's not illegal, and it's something we could start working on today...)
---
Phase 2: Targeted recruitment
Anyone who follows us can consider themselves part of the collective. (Do feel free to contact us if you have ideas for how you could contribute further.) But if you're serious, you'll probably already understand that simply sharing our message far and wide is the most essential part of our ideas actually working. The social media algorithms will hate us, legacy media won't touch us- success is likely to rely largely on the organic growth of our community through word-of-mouth and traditional outreach.
This makes the question of who is actually worth spending time and energy engaging with all the more pertinent. Although anyone with a heart and a desire for a better planet is welcome to our collective, AJC is fundamentally a movement built by workers, for workers. We must assume the middle and upper classes will be actively hostile, as their status relies wholly on our continued ignorance and obedience.
Thus, the single most important thing any of us can do is engage our fellow workers and waken them up to the freer future offered under the SPS model. Our strategic focus from day one must be on cultivating robust networks among the global workforce, ensuring that every effort we make directly contributes to reaching the necessary 15% saturation required to realise the plan's vision (the more connections you have overseas in this regard, the better...).
---
Phase 3: The 'Great Refusal' – Dismantling the Nation-State (post-critical mass)
It's not possible to gauge when we will hit the critical mass necessary for an effective, nonviolent global secession. It might be decades, it might be centuries. Whenever it occurs, the practical conclusion of it will be starving the existing centralised system of its labour and taxes. Without these two things, the nation-state (and indeed, a ruling class) cease to exist...
-
Withdrawal: Once critical mass is reached in many years, our labour network (most importantly in transport, energy, logistics, essential manufacturing and other key industries) must cease work for the state.
-
Tax and Debt Nullification: The labour withdrawal should be coupled with a widespread refusal to pay taxes and service debts to national financial institutions. Other financial activity should also be minimised or stopped completely; i.e. everyday consumer spending, and digital transactions.
These combined actions are necessary, because one dismantles the economic function of the state (labour), while the other dismantles its fiscal foundation (taxes/debt/spending), leading to total systemic failure. In combination, they would- hypothetically, of course- force central governments to release core assets such as national energy grids and public infrastructure. These assets can then be repurposed for a complete reorganisation and restructuring of the current globalist model into a planetful of Sovereign Peace Settlements.
Note: of course, parallel/ counter-economic networks would need to be ready beforehand.
---
Phase 4: Reorganisation, Reformation, and Self-Sustenance
Following a successful phase 3, the focus can then shift from resistance to construction.
Please don't misunderstand this phase. It wouldn't be necessary, nor advisable, to flatten entire cities and rebuild them and their infrastructure from scratch. In reality, the first colonies would likely be independent iterations of existing cities and towns, just free of their bureaucratic and financial central control systems (e.g. national financial regulations, mandatory taxation, central bank monetary policy, debt servitude enforced by state law, centralised corporate technologies, etc.). These initial Sovereign Peace Settlements (SPS) might retain much of their current physical infrastructure and populace, just without the oppressive, overarching legal, fiscal, and authoritative structures of the former nation-state.
Here are some specific steps each settlement would need to take in order to :
-
Attraction by social compatibility: Groups will self-organise into small, geographically coherent colonies of 100,000 to 1 million people; unified by culture, language, and/or shared philosophical belief.
-
Optimal population size: The scale mentioned above seems optimal for accountable governance, trust and diversification of skills, and it's not an arbitrary estimate: it's a range that strikes a balance between economic necessity and human accountability/ trust, and considers the entire life-support chain necessary for true sovereignty. For instance, the minimum of 100,000 is required not just to have a few dozen advanced specialists (engineers, surgeons, or chip fabricators), but to support the entire educational and industrial infrastructure that produces them- the universities, advanced trade schools, specialised equipment manufacturers, and the complex supply chains required. Conversely, the upper limit of 1 million offers a necessary ceiling for maintaining the high social trust and direct political accountability essential for transparent governance, as populations much larger than this invariably lead to distant, unmanageable centralised bureaucracies that erode local control. (Smaller settlements would also significantly reduce the demand for large, centralised policing and justice systems; a point we'll come back to shortly.)
-
Core infrastructure: The absolute non-negotiable pillars of long-term sustainability and survival within an autonomous settlement- assuming the settlement wants to hold on to many of the features that have come to define modern civilised life- are reliable agriculture and clean, independent nuclear power. The immediate construction of decentralised, safe nuclear power stations would be prioritised (e.g., micro-reactors) to provide high-density energy independence without relying on vast tracts of land, nor solely on unreliable systems such as wind, solar or wave. (We'll discuss nuclear energy again shortly, as it's an important conversation to have.)
Progress tracker
In regards to the above- we'll eventually release global membership/ coverage in the form of a graphic resembling this one. We'll keep our subscribers updated...
-
The preserved legacy system...
The envisioned final decentralised world incorporates a small, separate corner where the old, centralised system is deliberately maintained. This measure eliminates the pretext for future ideological warfare. So much societal unrest is fuelled by the "grass is always greener" fallacy, where people believe that a better system is being secretly withheld from them by authority (e.g., that the former centralised economy was perfectly harmonious and free of friction). The only definitive way to mitigate this inherent human suspicion is to turn the old system into a verifiable, accessible reality.
This 'legacy system' thus serves two crucial functions. Firstly, it acts as a cautionary thought- a tangible educational exhibit for future generations to visit, and truly understand why the transition occurred. Secondly, it provides a release valve, allowing individuals who distrust the Sovereign Peace Settlement model to freely migrate and experience the alternative system firsthand. By 'freezing' the alternative for research purposes, the complete model ensures its own longevity.
---
Phase 5 (ongoing): The SURVIVE Ethical Screen
To ensure the new society maintains its integrity, stability and independence (and those in power never start exploiting their citizens), every new societal development (technology, practice, system, material- any new thing) should have to pass the SURVIVE screening criteria:
S- Safety
Is it safe?
-
Example: A new communal heating fluid that burns cleanly but is highly explosive fails immediately on safety. A new, non-toxic, closed-loop heating fluid passes.
U- Understandable
Is its function toward preserving life and happiness in society relatively easy to understand?
-
Example: A system requiring citizens to consume an unlabelled, highly-complex biochemical paste every Tuesday to prevent an extremely niche tropical fungus (that hasn't been seen in 50 years) fails, as the action is confusing and its purpose is unclear. A new electricity-free hoover passes.
R- Resource Independence
Can it be sustained internally without having to outsource/ become dependent on supplies from external colonies, without drawing resources away from other internal essentials? It's not really fit for a sovereign community, if not.
-
Example: A crop that requires soil nutrients only available from trade with an untrusted external colony fails, as it creates dependency. A new fertiliser process derived entirely from local, renewable waste streams passes.
V- Valuable Survival Advantage
Does it offer some kind of clear survival advantage?
-
Example: A new highly addictive junk food fails. A simple atmospheric water generation and purifier unit passes, as it solves a local water quality issue.
I- Immune to Monopolisation
Is there a low risk of it being monopolised/weaponised?
-
Example: An arbitrary new central currency, or a single, rare earth mineral available only via one specific external trade route would fail. A fully self-contained, open-source energy storage blueprint, which uses common materials easily found and processed within the colony's borders, passes.
V- Vitality
Does it promote an objective, tangible increase in collective happiness/wellbeing/health?
-
Example: A proposed mandate where citizens are required to spend 5 hours per week in a designated room, staring at a specific grey wall to 'promote focus,' fails due to lack of objective benefit. The establishment of a communal therapy centre offering massage and ergonomic training passes.
E- Exclusion Mandate
If the answer to any of those questions is ‘no’, it should be excluded.
p.s. If you believe in the power of mnemonics/ decision models like the above (as we do), check out our Old Theory page. There's more on there- in particular, the downloadable Survival-Based Utilitarian decision model.
Why nuclear energy?
Before answering this question, we must return to perhaps the most fundamental assertion of AJC: should the SPS vision eventually be realised, sovereign colonies would retain the autonomy to determine how they run their own societies. If they wanted to ignore the energy demands of modern infrastructure, and fully return to iron age agrarianism then that would be completely up to them. For those wanting to retain some of the progress and comfort of 21st Century life however, AJC have several strong recommendations- and nuclear energy is one of them...
Nuclear power might not conjure images of lush tropical fjords nor tranquil open fields, but it is perhaps the only realistic option humanity has at its current population size, if it wants to retain access to the energy-intensive technologies that have come to define 21st century living standards. A single nuclear fuel pellet creates as much energy as one ton of coal, allowing reactors to operate with an industry-leading capacity factor of over 92% (ensuring constant, baseload power). Crucially, this immense power is generated with the smallest physical footprint: a nuclear plant requires up to 200 times less land per unit of electricity than a comparable wind farm, and about 34 times less than a solar facility.
The method itself is also very close to carbon neutral (i.e., leads to a negligible net increase in the greenhouse gases that companies like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth obsess over), not to mention is the only realistic contender in terms of energy density and stability for the fossil fuels powering the Earth presently (coal, oil, natural gas- these come from the fossilised remains of dead plants and animals, so are in limited supply). Fossil fuels are eventually just going to run out anyway, so we need to agree on an eventual alternative regardless of your personal stance on their use (again, that is assuming we want to retain many of our modern comforts: the cosy constancy of 24/7 climate control, the streaming and internet services we rely on for education and entertainment, the persistent power that supports hospitals, police stations and army barracks, food production, and all forms of digital communication).
But what about waste?
---
Nuclear waste
Nuclear waste remains one of the most contentious topics in modern energy, primarily because the risk is long-term and the public's perception is heavily influenced by historical disasters. The catastrophic 1986 Chernobyl meltdown and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident cemented the psychological fear that the high-level waste is an unsolvable, existential threat. It should however be noted that both of these accidents stemmed from freak occurrences, rooted in things like unique design flaws (Chernobyl) or extraordinary natural disasters (Fukushima; a massive tsunami following a magnitude 9.0 earthquake).
Generally speaking, nuclear power is considered the most technologically advanced and reliable means of producing zero-carbon baseload power, but this longevity creates the unique challenge of managing waste that remains radioactive for millennia. Since simply storing the waste above ground indefinitely presents a long-term risk that could burden future generations, the global consensus among scientists and engineers is currently that the only responsible, permanent solution is to isolate it completely using a Deep Geological Repository (DGR).
What is a Deep Geological Repository (DGR)?
A Deep Geological Repository, or DGR, is essentially a high-security underground vault designed for the permanent isolation of high-level nuclear waste. It's built in extremely stable, solid rock formations, usually at a depth of 200 to 1,000 metres (roughly the height of two to three skyscrapers stacked end-to-end) below the surface. While the DGR concept is the international scientific consensus for the safest permanent solution, the disposal of high-level waste in full-scale commercial repositories is not yet operational. The first commercial DGR is currently under construction in Finland (the Onkalo repository), expected to begin operating in the mid-late 2020s. Other nations, including Sweden, Canada, and France, are in advanced stages of selecting sites and developing their own facilities.
Will we eventually run out of space for DGRs, when they're operational.
No, this is not a realistic concern for several reasons. Because the nuclear fission process uses minuscule amounts of material to generate vast amounts of power, the resulting volume of high-level, solid waste is incredibly small (especially compared to the physical waste produced by any other large-scale energy source). Even if the entire planet switched to nuclear energy for a thousand years, the resulting high-level waste volume would still be tiny compared to the volume of stable, deep rock available globally for permanent storage.
Another thing to bear in mind, always, with subjects like nuclear waste disposal is we're only talking about a present technology. Expected future innovations, such as fast neutron reactors, are designed to consume the spent fuel from today’s plants, significantly reducing both the volume of waste and the time it needs to be isolated. And besides: these are only disposal solutions for what is expected to be a transient problem. Scientists are already on the brink of unlocking a new nuclear energy solution that produces no radioactive waste at all.
The Fusion Solution.
There are two types of nuclear energy production: fission, and fusion. Fission is the process used in current power plants, where large atoms are split to release energy, which results in long-lived radioactive waste. Nuclear fusion involves forcing small atoms to merge, releasing far more energy with virtually no long-lived radioactive byproducts. It's what goes on inside the centre of the sun, and stars.
Fusion Power is the ultimate goal. They would provide virtually limitless power with none of the long-lived radioactive waste associated with fission. Fusion would stop the generation of new long-lived waste entirely, ending the consumption of DGR space permanently. This goal is being pursued by major international collaborations, such as ITER (the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, and numerous well-funded private companies, including Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), Helion Energy, and TAE Technologies.
---
I hope the above goes some way toward demonstrating the challenges of nuclear power are logistical, not insurmountable, and are currently being solved by advanced engineering. Nuclear energy offers the technological leverage necessary to achieve true independence and sustain 21st-century comforts, freeing us from the fragile, centralised energy systems currently exploited by global powers. Even with the operational nuclear power plants we have presently, the low-footprint, high-reliability baseload power demonstrated above proves how we could someday feasibly power a sovereign, decentralised World, without relying solely on the wind, waves, or
sunny days...
.jpeg)
The space race
So how would a decentralised planet address the elephant in the room: how extra-planetary travel would be regulated?
This is an important subject to address, as the ambition of extra-planetary travel- while scientifically profound- has historically been inextricably linked to the military-industrial complex of centralised powers. Neil Armstrong's mission to the moon, for example, wasn't fuzzy family-friendly TV- it was NATO showing Russia they were technologically superior, had access to greater resources, and were ready to throw hands at a moments notice (from in or outside the exosphere). Thus, under our proposed planetary vision, any attempt to export human conflict or hierarchical systems beyond our own planet would need to be deemed an existential risk to the entire human race. If Earth cannot maintain internal peace, it is ethically indefensible to export this same capacity for war to the cosmos.
We have a perfectly good planet. It's us that need to change, not our habitat...
The 1,000-Year Peace Threshold
The resolution, which must be clearly communicated between and unanimously accepted by all Sovereign Peace Settlements, is a hard threshold: before humanity may even consider extra-terrestrial travel, the planet must first achieve and maintain an uninterrupted, verifiable period of one thousand (1,000) years of global peace. This millennium of stability serves as the absolute minimum proof that humanity has overcome its inherent capacity for self-destruction and can be trusted with further cosmic expansion. Even once (and only once) this unparalleled epoch of peace has been established, the sole justifiable rationale for pursuing extra-planetary infrastructure should be to begin preparing for the long-term survival of the species in the face of stellar death (the eventual demise of the Earth's primary star).
This approach means that any proposed mission whose primary goal is military expansion, resource exploitation, or unchecked/ potentially adversarial extraterrestrial colonisation would be explicitly prohibited, and met with a proportionate military response from all other colonies.
---
Contribution balance- our proposed money replacement.
I get it: it sounds a little dodgy, and 'social credit'. But hear us out...
We often think of money as a foregone necessity. In fairness, it does have its advantages. It promotes social order; encouraging people to 'earn things' legitimately rather than just fighting over or stealing them. It also catalyses economic activity. Someone needing a specific tool from a provider who only wanted chickens in exchange, would have to acquire chickens somehow; or wait indefinitely for a provider who wanted something else. However, creating a universal commodity like money allows the exchange to happen instantly, keeping the economy in continuous forward motion. Leaders and governments viewed this as essential in the tribal arms races that overshadowed the economies of old, and even more essential in the more modern trade wars that eventually enveloped them.
The massive downside is that- like most other things- money itself has long since been commodified. People waste all their finite energy chasing this arbitrary unit of value instead of pursuing the genuine goods and societal necessities it’s supposedly meant to buy. It's also extremely corruptible; amounting to a centralised control system on the scale of few others. "I'll give you this non-existent shiny number to keep you alive, if you do x, y, z for me for the rest of your life..."
...Are we serious?
^ Legacy money
Here's what the Absolute Justice Collective recommends for the established Sovereign Peace Settlements (SPS) of the future, as a replacement. We want social order and an efficient, workable economy still. But we simply must improve the fundamental axiom upon which 'value' is apportioned, to promote the needs of society (e.g. healthy food, clean water, medicine, exercise, a safe and nurturing upbringing) over its more pervasive wants (e.g. drugs, addictions, human trafficking, dangerous and unnecessary products).
Presumed Moral Capacity Balance (PMCB)
This is the technical name for our proposed replacement for money- although for ease, we might simply shorten this to Contribution Balance. But what exactly is it, and why would it be better than regular money?
As aforementioned: when it's not simply being thrown around at the whim of those printing/ supplying it, the traditional monetary system flows in the direction of arbitrary societal demands- including the more perverse ones. There's no inherent benefit to this. Many people will pay high prices for stupid/ dangerous things (to give some extreme examples: addictive drugs, gambling and the illegal purchase of sex slaves through human trafficking networks. America purportedly traces around 13% of its GDP to the black market...). And money not in circulation generally just gets hoarded by the financially fortunate, to an absurd degree (40% of the World's total wealth is said to be in the hands of 1% of its population. Picture a lion keeping back half a zebra carcass for months, while the rest of the pride starves...).
There is no design mechanism in place whatsoever to prevent money's manipulation, in these many and varied respects. In stark contrast to this, the Contribution Balance would be built firmly on Survival-Based Utilitarian (SBU) ethics. Under CB, the payment for communal work (and route to societal power) is not based on who demands the service, but how much that service contributes to the long-term resilience, health and wellbeing and of the community; as determined by both a public majority, and elected, highly visible, high-CB officials. This harmonious blending of currency, justice and the law itself achieves a massive reduction in the need for separate legal and financial bureaucracies. (I hear a sigh from the back at how this sounds like it's veering towards Marxism. I do get it- any system proposing the abolishment of traditional money would, to the uninitiated- but it's not. Marxism advocates for the total consolidation of state power. This system does the complete opposite; de-globalising the planet into compact Sovereign Peace Settlements, and encouraging citizens to own their own mini-farms for near-total independency. The state would only step in to prevent existential threats like water supply poisoning, killer diseases, and invasions. You can read more about our founders' views on Marxism on the Old Theory page.)
Trust and transparency
To work properly, the CB system must be implemented in a transparent way, and changes to a person's balance must be recorded physically rather than electronically. The entire modern financial system is a highly centralised digital liability. It only takes one thing- a rogue financier, an error, or a tyrannical agenda- to digitally change a person's life under the current paradigm. Under CB however, trust would never be outsourced to a computer, or faceless technocrats. We would make the system un-hackable by relying on public transparency and physical verification methods; ensuring that calculations and balances are performed in front of the very eyes of the community. For example, by forcing all critical value transactions through a publicly monitored physical location- perhaps a Town/ City Hall- the community replaces technical security (encryption) with social security (scrutiny by the collective). Any positive or negative balance change would be entered into a massive, physical, auditable book- making secret, digital manipulation, and economic catastrophes like 'Black Wednesday' impossible...
So what exactly would this system look like, in practical terms?
Key terminology.
First, let's lay down the core concepts of our proposed new system.
-
Axiom of value (SBU): The fundamental ethical rule that assigns value based on actions that enhance the colony's survival prospects and sustainably maximise collective well-being (needs), not on mere demand (wants). So, as examples: learning a trade, administering disease-curing medicine or helping ward violent invaders away from the colony's borders would attract more value than selling an addictive substance, human trafficking, dog fighting or being a porn star under this valuation system. (This axiom describes survival-based utilitarian ethics; discussed in much more depth, for those interested, on our Old Theory page.)
-
Valuation Council: A rotating, democratically appointed body of mature adults responsible for establishing and regularly reviewing the utilitarian value of all necessary services and products, based on current needs and effort. As examples: while border defence, scientific research, healthcare service provision, farming and water treatment services are likely to retain a high value indefinitely, professions such as cocktail bartending, advertising and luxury property development would be assigned a very low or zero CU value. While these less essential activities wouldn't be prohibited, they simply do not attract the same value as key service provision, nor would they contribute significantly to the Contribution Balance necessary to eventually apply for positions of authority within the SPS. (Conversely, actions that might be transiently valuable include things like the immediate clean-up of a local toxic spill, or the rapid construction of emergency flood defences following severe weather.)
-
Contribution Unit (CU): The standardised, quantifiable unit of value that aims to measure a particular service's positive contribution to the SBU SPS. See *below for a suggested proforma setting out some rules for said quantification process.
-
Physical ID: Identifies the citizen; it is non-digital and does not store their balance. It's necessary because it contains a unique, non-electronic, hand-pressed seal or signature cipher which the citizen must use to stamp or sign next to their name in the Colony Contribution Ledger, preventing impersonation without relying on biometrics or large centralised databases.
-
Plaque Tokens: Small, physical tokens (metal or stone) representing CUs; they are non-spendable and act only as a receipt of earned value. The overall accumulated balance is not physically retained through the tokens, as this information is stored and publicly verified in the Colony Contribution Ledger. These tokens are designed to be durable and easily stored by the earner (e.g., in a simple personal pouch or lockbox) until they are ready to be deposited and converted into spendable vouchers at the Town Hall. (The citizen could simply skip this process and go straight to the ledger entry; the tokens simply act as physical receipt.)
-
Barter Vouchers: Allocated after a person has deposited their earned plaque tokens. These would be spendable, perishable paper currency stamped with CU value, issued by the Town Hall. They would be the only accepted medium of exchange at local markets. The deliberate separation from the Plaque Tokens that unlocks access to these vouchers forces all earned value through the Town Hall audit checkpoint. This ensures spendable money is only given for valuable work, and prevents black markets/ counterfeit currencies from arising. The vouchers would be perishable (expiring after roughly six months) to prevent hoarding. The Town Hall would also apply unique seals, serial numbers and colour codes to each voucher. This would allow any citizen to instantly cross-reference a voucher against the public log in the Town Hall to check its legitimacy. (Direct policing of counterfeiting would need to occur alongside, otherwise there would inevitably be fakes and the system would collapse.)
-
Colony Contribution Ledger: The single, high-security, physical master book in the City Hall that is the ultimate, publicly accessible source of truth for all balances.
-
Public CU Deduction: The SBU SPS equivalent of a criminal trial. Breaking the colony's law would result in a transparent reduction of a person's Plaque Tokens/ CB balance.
-
Positions of power/ authority (JEG). Judiciary, Government and Enforcement roles would require a sustained minimum positive Contribution Balance; perhaps 40. This guarantees that those wielding high-stakes power have demonstrably proven their decades-long commitment to maximising and maintaining the colony's wellbeing.
---
Visualising the basic CB economic process
The first thing to understand is that- theoretically- engaging with the CB system would be entirely optional.
From birth, citizens would be raised to live largely independent, semi-agrarian lives on small, permanently-owned family farms, responsible for meeting their own basic needs with minimal (if any) state intervention. They would however be encouraged to cultivate a secondary, specialised skillset (e.g., engineering, healthcare, education). This is because work performed using this expertise benefits the wider community as opposed to just themselves and their immediate family. Thus, it would be rewarded via the communal Contribution Balance (CB) system. The CB system is what unlocks Barter Vouchers, which the citizen can spend on non-standard necessities and comfort items at their local market (e.g. specialised medicine, or advanced machining tools)
In this sense, the CB system/ central market are entirely optional; functioning only to improve the community's quality of life, while leaving the basic preservation of life largely in the hands of individuals.
Let's explore the optional CB system process.
Positive process: Earning, Plaque Token (a.k.a. Presumed Moral Capacity/ Contribution points) Endorsement, and Barter Voucher withdrawal
-
Positive contribution: A citizen performs a valuable and necessary action, with 'value' and 'necessity' relative to how much they maximise the happiness of the community, or preserve life within it (these are actually more or less the same thing. You can read more about the intriguing theory explaining this on our Old Theory page). For example: working an essential engineering/ medicine job over a period of years, or developing a major engineering/ medicinal innovation. (Engaging with formal education can also lead to points endorsement- we'll explain this side of things further in a little while.)
-
Ad-hoc recognition/ endorsement process. For standard jobs, a person simply takes proof of ongoing work to their Town/City hall on a regular basis as and when they want barter vouchers (explained shortly), to take to the central market.
-
Valuation council assessment: The action (job/ new innovation/ educational achievement) is reviewed by the valuation council to confirm it provides a measurable benefit by increasing the survival, comfort, or happiness of a significant number of presumed morally capable sentient beings (positively-contributing people, or non-carnivorous/ non-dangerous animals. Again: that might sound a bit strange to anyone who hasn't gone through our Old Theory page).
-
Ethical screening: If the action is some kind of innovation, it must successfully pass the SURVIVE Ethical Screen, explained earlier on this page (Safety, Understandable, Resource Independence, Valuable Survival Advantage, Immune to Monopolisation, Vitality, Exclusion Mandate) to ensure the survival advantages outweigh any potential risk of it potentially being monopolised/ weaponised.
-
Balance endorsement: If the Valuation Council determines the action adds value to the community, they raise the citizen's Contribution Balance (CB); thereby increasing their Presumed Moral Capacity (PMC) score. A person's balance doesn't fluctuate by default; it remains set and permanent, unless they do something bad that deducts points (explained momentarily, in the 'negative process').
-
Transparency and proof: The balance change is recorded immediately and visibly in the public Colony Contribution Ledger in City Hall. All areas of City Hall are open to the public at all times. The citizen can optionally take physical Plaque Tokens (PTs) as personal receipt of the transaction. These measures ensure balances aren't stored on secret, corruptible databases; attracting the sort of transgressions, conspiracies and mass distrust we observe in societies of the present.
-
Voucher withdrawal: The citizen can then withdraw perishable Barter Vouchers from their enhanced balance; granting them access to specialist commodities at the market. The vouchers stay in circulation for 6 months, at which point they perish to prevent hoarding and wealth inequality.
-
Access to power/ authority: Achieving 40 CB points grants the citizen eligibility for high-trust roles in the Judiciary, Enforcement and Government (JEG); with positions of increasing significance scaling in line with higher points. We suggest 100 CB points as requirement for colony leadership.
Negative process: Accountability, points deduction and criminal justice
-
Utilitarian crime: A citizen commits an action that deliberately causes unnecessary suffering to an innocent sentient being (e.g. violently attacking someone unprovoked, or stealing their food).
-
Criminal justice: The incident is resolved through an SBU criminal trial, where guilt is determined based on the approximate years' suffering it causes to the victim(s). Years' suffered by the victim equates to CB points deductible. (This a slightly more complicated concept; best understood by exploring the relevant sections of our Old Theory page.)
-
Punishment: Alongside standard criminal justice remedies (custodial, criminal behaviour orders etc), the court mandates a deduction from the citizen's Contribution Balance. This deduction reduces the citizen's CB score; reducing the number of barter vouchers they can withdraw (until they've raised their balance again), and their eligibility for positions of societal power. This has a direct negative impact on their quality of life in the short-term; deterring future crimes, and ensuring justice is served proportionately.
So, to consolidate all the above:
-
In a survival-based utilitarian SBS, people are rewarded for preserving life/ maximising happiness, and shunned for causing suffering/ threatening life.
-
A person is valued according to the 'sum' of their positive (happiness-causing) and negative (suffering-causing) actions. This sum is represented by their Contribution (a.k.a. Presumed Moral Capacity) Balance.
-
The only people entrusted with authoritative roles are those with high positive balances.
Note: We ackowledge that certain conversations around 'the worth of a person' can sound a little cold. Our response to this is straightforward: the Survival-Based Utilitarian (SBU) philosophy is, by definition, morally absolutist; judging an individual's actions over their intentions, or mere words. We fundamentally reject the notion that all individuals possess equal inherent value to the community; believing that benefits and opportunities are not unearned rights, but must be demonstrably earned through proven worth and sustained ethical conduct. Positive, contributing citizens are therefore prioritised without exception. Conversely, we ascribe no inherent social value to those who actively cause unnecessary suffering- violent criminals, paedophiles, rapists, or animal abusers, for example- and we make no apology for valuing a positive social contributor over said. (SBU ethics, criminal justice, and related subjects are covered comprehensively on our Old Theory page, for those wanting to delve deeper into our philosophy.)
---
What of property law? How would it be enforced?
Hmm.
This questions suggests a slight misunderstanding of what a Survival-Based Utilitarian Sovereign Peace Settlement (SBU SPS) would represent.
The whole point of an SBU SPS is to cultivate a community of strong, happy, healthy families who are largely self-sufficient. Folk who rise to challenges, and are generally content with sticking up for themselves. This would extend to the prevention- and possibly resolution- of many everyday problems, including some crimes. So, there would be property law, but a significant portion of it would be enforced by you, and the everyday social circles you build through contributing positively to your community. The idea is that this community of independent, skilled, survival-minded individuals can resolve social issues largely autonomously without the need for much state oversight at all (besides things like border protection and resource scarcity, that might inherently require skills beyond the capabilities of ordinary civilians). This 'tough love' attitude is necessary to dig us out of the pervasive dependency mindset that has steadily played working class families into the globalist's grasp...
---
Further legal concepts under our proposed SBU SPS.
So to summarise property: ownership is absolute and unaffected by the state. This presents a necessarily double-edged sword. The state can't touch or interfere with it, but it's also earned, sustained, and defended by you, the owner (except for the obvious expectation of basic necessities for the young, old, and injured). Property is yours so long as you earn and sustain your claim to it by proving your merit and moral contribution to your community. There would be no high court enforcement officers knocking on your door demanding some (non-existent) rent payment. But equally, the proactive defence of your home? There would be few policemen, state CCTV cameras or Westminster men in funny wigs claiming to do that for you.
To be honest, this isn't even a total paradigm shift. Like many other things in our vision, it's simply an acceptance of reality. The perceived shroud of law and order that you think is protecting your home currently represents an invisible and breakable promise given by the state (conveniently, in exchange for your continued payment and labour). We're already on our own in real life, most of the time. Unless a police officer or good Samaritan happens to be passing, if someone's going to attack you or burgle your property, the police response typically occurs long after the damage has already been done. The SBU SPS simply acknowledges and moves on from this reality; encouraging citizens to foster an affinity with survivalist principles like martial arts, good physical health and proactive security measures (locks, high walls, alarms, potentially guard dogs etc) to prevent such crimes occurring in the first place.
Basic law, and other essential legal principles in an SBU SPS.
Under this system, there would be a constitutional basic law that sets out the fundamental rules of what the community considers moral, 'good' behaviour- and indeed, bad. It wouldn't be a 500-page word salad covering every conceivable situation (as much Western law is written presently), just a fundamental code of conduct seen as necessary for collective wellbeing and survival. You also wouldn't need the labyrinthine, corruptible central legal systems that exist presently to enforce it (I'll come back to that in a minute...).
How could any legal system afford to be this simplistic, while still being effective? Because without the confounding factors of corporate, national, and religious interests (and gargantuan population sizes), the law- and more importantly, morality- becomes much simpler. Under Survival-based utilitarian ethics, the most basic moral and legal principle should be that the deliberate causation of unnecessary suffering to an innocent sentient being is wrong. The inverse principle is that the minimisation of unnecessary suffering to sentient beings (or indeed, the maximisation of their safety, contentment and happiness; within reasonable limits)- starting with oneself, and one's own family- is the right thing to do, always. This broad but clear assertion would be the guiding moral force behind all of the community's decisions, including its prosecutions.
Speaking of: our recommendation (besides the general encouragement of maximising happiness within an SBU SPS) is that a mere seven branches of crime would be investigated and prosecuted by the state in this compact society:
-
Theft/Misappropriation
-
Deliberately causing unnecessary physical suffering (violence); a.k.a. unprovoked assaults on innocent people/ animals. Would need to extend to the explicit prohibition of genocide, torture, slavery, human trafficking, sexual violence, child abuse, and animal abuse for absolute clarity.
-
Invasion or attempted invasion of SPS territory (implicitly covered by the first two, but made explicit as a crime against sovereignty).
-
Supplying/ involved in the supply of addictive substances
-
Supplying/ involved in the supply of counterfeit currencies
-
Suppressing free speech
-
Fraud and forgery
All other breaches of Survival-Based Utilitarian ethics occurring under the system would be resolved through communal common sense.
What- so there would be no policing? No CPS, no massive criminal/civil courtrooms?
As discussed earlier under 'Contribution Balance', there would be a central court- possibly courts- to resolve all the colony's (now-fully-integrated) judicial and Contribution Balance cases. They would assess evidence gathered and presented largely by the community itself. The core life-saving emergency services, such as those provided via the 999 system in the Western world, would still be staffed by trained first responders. However it is extremely unlikely that the omnipresent, hyper-specialised police and justice institutions- plus all their accompanying surveillance systems- would be pressing their noses into the lives of normal people to anything like the extent they are today.
Think of it this way. The necessity for large, authoritarian police and justice systems in current societies is a direct measure of their social failure and civic dependency, not their success. And to be honest, they don't really even work. The positive disposal rate for all police-recorded offences in England and Wales in 2024 (encompassing convictions, and all confirmed out-of-court disposals where the suspect is identified and accepts responsibility) was approximately 9.8%. Less than 10% of recorded criminal offences across these countries resulted in the criminal getting their comeuppance. Perhaps they are a necessary safeguard right now; but in an SBU SPS, would these centralised enforcers actually be worth the cost, privacy invasion, scandals, state weaponisation and other baggage they come with? I would argue no. The demand for omnipresent law enforcement simply scales with the anonymity, complexity, and moral fragmentation of the society it serves. A very high demand quite simply points to a badly designed, badly run society.
The compact SBU SPS, by design, would eliminate the conditions that necessitate this high-cost, high-corruptibility infrastructure:
-
Visibility: It is a smaller, minimalist society where people’s actions, contributions, and moral worth (recorded in the CB system) are highly visible. All governance and judicial processes would be carried out in full visibility of the general public in broad daylight, in a handful of all-purpose courts. There would be no corruptible, digitised databases recording the results of these cases; they would be stored using the transparent, physical mechanism offered under the CB system described earlier. It would be much, much harder to conceal transgressions under this system, leading to much higher trust and far less disorder.
-
Cohesion: It fosters natural unity, populated by citizens with similar core values and a shared, tangible drive to contribute positively. Individuals who oppose the Survival-Based Utilitarian standard could simply leave that particular colony.
In such an environment, the cost-to-reward ratio for a huge, centralised police force plummets. Would there truly be a need for elite, specialised police officers, or would the entire society, in effect, become the justice system?
I would argue, yes.
(p.s. Our proposed draft constitution, that encapsulates all of the above principles, can be found on the 'Old Theory' page, for reference. Like everything else though, this is mere recommendation- it would be down to individual communities to define what they perceive as right and wrong.)
---
Putting it all together.
Let's see how all the above might translate to a real, better life of the future...
Dave: the life of a survival-based utilitarian.
Life in the utilitarian Sovereign Peace Settlement isn't defined by bank balances. It’s anchored instead in the survival value a person brings to their community.
Take Dave.
Like most other citizens, Dave lives a mostly independent, semi-agrarian lifestyle with his partner and two children. This means their family unit is primarily self-sufficient; relying heavily on their own crops, livestock, and property maintenance, drastically reducing their need to participate in an external market. Because there is no central authority dictating population density or work allocation, Dave can have as many family members or friends living at the property as he wishes, all contributing to the day-to-day maintenance of their small farm. It is this fluid, rotational sharing of domestic duties that allows Dave to sustain his specialised engineering job alongside; enabling him to accrue additional barter vouchers and maximise the family’s quality of life without compromising their independence.
Just 4 miles away is City hall; the nucleus of Dave’s SPS (NeoLondon). Dave visits at the start of the week to collect barter vouchers to bring to NeoLondon central market. He needs to go there as there’s an issue with the HVAC system at his farm he doesn’t have the expertise to resolve, and he’s run out of antibiotics. He provides proof of his ongoing status as an active, licenced engineer to the value council in the form of a signed annual assessment from his supervisor, and a physical logbook detailing his completed projects and maintenance hours. In exchange, he receives some vouchers.
Voucher allocation is, quite simply, common sense. No one gets an excessive amount, nor are they permanent. They are deliberately designed to be perishable, expiring after approximately 6 months to prevent hoarding and keep currency circulating. This prevents unfairness, greed and resource scarcity. In addition, the exact number of vouchers allocated to a citizen depends on their contribution balance, further adjusted based on factors like the number of proven dependents (partners, children, etc.) they are supporting. Said rules are kept open for democratic public debate in City Hall.
During a major long-term engineering project, Dave unexpectedly coins a new closed-loop atmospheric water generation unit. The unit reclaims and purifies moisture from waste steam, inadvertently solving a persistent water scarcity issue for many in NeoLondon. He brings his innovation to the Valuation Council, who subject it to the SURVIVE Ethical Screen. They find it demonstrably Safe (no sharp/ dangerous parts), Understandable (simple design), provides a Valuable Survival Advantage/ offers Vitality (solving local water supply issues), and is Immune to Monopolisation (is a decentralised reproducible technology, that anyone can make and use). The Council subsequently raises his CB to 40. This newly raised balance even opens the door for him to consider positions within the Judiciary, Law enforcement and Government (JEG); offering the opportunity to gain maximum status, security and a legacy to pass on to his family.
Dave has a choice: he can take the physical Plaque Tokens (PTs), which serve as an extra layer of personal receipt and proof of his earnings, or he can skip doing so. Regardless, a record of the endorsement is made immediately, securely and visibly in the public Colony Contribution Ledger in the center of City Hall, in front of several onlookers. They are curious to understand the details of his innovation award. The Council and Dave are happy to explain his new water unit to them, and how it will benefit the community as a whole.
However, things soon take a turn. Following a stressful week at home and work, Dave loses it during a petty disagreement over some shoes at a local market and punches another citizen in the face. Witnesses immediately report the largely unprovoked assault. It proceeds to an SBU criminal trial, where Dave is found guilty of causing unnecessary physical suffering to another. Though a custodial sentence isn’t found to be appropriate, he’s issued a criminal behaviour order and a deduction from his Contribution Balance. This reduces the number of barter vouchers he can withdraw before increasing his balance again, and brings the number back below the 40-unit threshold required to work in positions of authority. This deters Dave from punching someone again. (Over shoes, at least.)
Humbled, he returned to his engineer role with fierce dedication; eventually designing a decentralised power grid with the potential to improve the lives of well over the required 8,000 people for a substantial CB increase. Because of this, over the next decade, he earned back his balance and then some. He even went on to initiate colony-wide education programs around his fool-proof new system, securing his place in the highest tiers of Presumed Moral Capacity (PMC) at 100 points. After spending the required years proving the resilience and genuine long-term commitment to the role demanded by the system, Dave was made Colony Leader in a landslide election.
A proud Dave looked out over the thriving semi-agrarian plots of NeoLondon, realising his legacy was not the power he held, but the peace and happiness he had engineered through it. His entire life- the initial contribution, the failure, the accountability, and the eventual ascent- had taught him that life's highest, most objective purpose comes quite simply from preserving, protecting and cherishing life itself… starting with those closest to us.
That's a purpose no one- and nothing- else can do for us.
Do you- like us- believe the only path to genuine, lasting peace requires humanity to step out of the centralised conflict machine? The Sovereign Peace Settlement vision offered by the Absolute Justice Collective is not a petition, a fleeting protest, nor a political party; it is a meticulously designed framework for the future, built on principles of resilience, justice, and self-determination.
If you recognise that the current global structure is fundamentally unsustainable, exploitative and unfixable, and that a radical re-localisation of power and morality is our only escape, then your next steps are simple, yet critical:
-
Subscribe: Join the Absolute Justice Collective mailing list below to receive critical updates, detailed documentation, and announcements about the next phase of our mission.
-
Follow: Visit the LINKS page and follow our social channels to help amplify this message and grow the movement globally.
-
Share: The single most important thing you can do it share the message of our work and encourage others to join the Collective.
The globalist's tyrannical reign is almost over.
The path to freedom begins today...
The ones who ran away.
Humanity remains locked in a war between good and bad.
The dirtbags who rob from the old and sick, the terrorists, the paedophiles- decent people must always be ready to stand up to them... not always in some heroic bid to save the world, but oftentimes simply to survive. This has always been the case...
To ever improve beyond this constant struggle- the 'status quo'- there eventually needs to be more good than bad people in the world. If left to play out naturally, it's likely this positive overpowering would indeed occur. Decent, principled people tend to be smarter, and better at surviving than their opposition...
However, this natural, generational progress has- for some centuries- been obstructed by a third, strange element: a parallel ruling faction, driven solely by self-preservation and greed. This third group avoids the moral fight between good and evil; cheating their way out of participation through clever illusion, doublespeak, and Wordly orchestration from the shadows. They intentionally blur the lines between good and bad, and lock the rest of the World in an eternal twilight, where the sun never truly shines.
To break this spell, we must abolish this strange element, and return to the basics of confronting evil- and minimising unnecessary suffering- directly.
We must, quite simply, stop running away...
-Rex Regis