Universal slider rules

**Date:** 17/5/26 --- ### Note on Slider Definitions Slider Definitions are exact and highly limited, they do not expand beyond the specifically outlined areas they claim to. Often this means the slider definition deviates from the standard "Colloquial" understanding of the words. ### Note on Axis Extremes The ends of each axis represent theoretical extremes. In practice, real-world systems rarely reach the absolute 0 or 100 points. These extremes are included by design: they create clear reference points at both ends of the scale, enabling more accurate relativism and removing any ambiguity about where the measurement begins. The extremes are designed to be the point at which "more" and "less" cease to have meaning for that slider, they do not impart moral weight and are non-judgemental. Where wording is used which may seem judgemental it is an observation of what that is generally used to describe it by the population at large rather than to impart the moral implications on it. ### Note on Slider Scaling The scale on each slider is non-linear and fully asymmetric. Contraction/expansion is permitted on one side only, on both sides, or on neither side, depending on the actual distribution of real-world ideologies on that axis. The exact location, width, and degree of any contraction or expansion is fluid from slider to slider and is calibrated solely to capture the empirical density of ideological variation on that specific core. The only mandatory principle is that the meaningful range—where actual ideological differentiation occurs—is expanded to occupy the majority of the visible scale, while any theoretically sparse or empty zones (whether at the extremes or in the middle) may be contracted as required. ### Application Rules - All societies are assessed holistically across all major domains. - Hierarchical weighting applies: core domains such as law, education curricula, and institutional governance carry primary weight; secondary domains provide supporting evidence. - When a system contains mixed or anomalous elements, evaluate the score in its totality. Anomalous elements are weighed according to their actual observable scope, consistency, and effect; they neither dominate nor are ignored. - Blurred or borderline systems are placed in natural overlap zones. - Where a system/ideology is limited due to confliciting external pressure it should be judged based on what it does in areas it does have primacy. ### Methodological Principles - Scoring is based **exclusively on empirical reality** — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. - Holistic assessment across all major domains with hierarchical weighting. - Observable empirical reality always takes precedence over official rhetoric, self-labeling, or constitutional claims. ### Final Guidelines **Specifics: Guidelines** All bands are flexible guidelines rather than strict brackets. This allows nuanced judgment when [topic] intensity varies across issues or domains, with primacy (predominant observable pattern, cumulative impact, breadth, and consistency) being the decisive factor. It does not allow for flexibility of the bands and individual policies will always fall within a predetermined band. In reality society and ideology will contain a mix of policies and actions which vary across several bands for a single slider, in this case the scorer is required to exersize their own judgement as it relates to the totallity of the system. The framework functions as a flexible guideline system, not a rigid formula. --- **End of Universal Boilerplate Rules**

Fourteen slider definitions

### 1A — Personal Autonomy This guideline measures the observable degree to which the system interferes with or imposes restrictions on the individual's personal autonomy — the range of voluntary actions, speech, choices, thoughts, beliefs, and physiological processes which the individual is permitted to control without systemic prevention or interference. It tracks **only** the level of systemic invasiveness: the degree, scope, and breadth of restrictions the system enacts and enforces. It does **not** measure the individual's actual experienced autonomy in daily life, nor does it evaluate natural or personal choices that may reduce autonomy (such as having children, marriage, or employment decisions). All laws and enforced restrictions are treated as negative factors that increase systemic invasiveness, although not all carry equal weight. The slider does not care for the moral implications for the law/restriction only it's existance. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in law, education curricula, employment practices, family policy, media narratives, institutional governance, public rituals, and daily cultural reflexes) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. ## Endos/Xenos (Optional Split) This slider includes an optional split measurement unique to Core 1A. In addition to the standard combined score, the guideline permits reporting personal autonomy as two separate values using the **Endos/Xenos** pair when the system applies markedly different levels of autonomy to different groups living under it. -… Band ranges: - 95–100 — Minimalist Anarchy - 90–95 - Strictly direct harm protections only - 82–89 — Laws protecting vulnerable individuals - 76–81 — Protection against exploitation - 70–75 — Restriction of self-regarding pseudo-vulnerable choices - 60–69 — Betterment of society restrictions - 51–59 — Paternalism / self-betterment laws - 44–50 — Early ideological/identity-based controls - 37–43 — Societal/cultural/behavioural conformity - 28–36 — Ideological enforcement and police state - 19–27 — Ideological reprogramming / thought control - 10–18 — Extreme restrictions on voluntary actions, movement and association - 0–9 (Floor – total dominion) ### 1B — Economic Autonomy This guideline measures the observable degree to which a system protects or restricts individuals' economic autonomy — the range of voluntary economic actions, contracts, property rights, production, trade, investment, and consumption decisions that remain free from state or collective coercion. It tracks the boundary between voluntary market mechanisms versus coercive state control over resources, labour, capital, and economic outcomes. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in law, taxation, regulation, licensing, nationalisation patterns, price/wage controls, inheritance rules, employment practices, and statistical outcomes of resource allocation) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. Band ranges: - 100 — Total, explicit, and universal protection of economic autonomy in every domain with no coercive state controls or rhetoric… - 98–99 — Near-total economic autonomy. Only the most marginal, temporary, and narrowly defined state interventions are permitted. Direct… - 96–97 — Extreme economic autonomy legitimation. Voluntary market mechanisms dominate law, employment, investment, and resource… - 95 — Absolute or near-absolute economic autonomy across all domains, with zero tolerance for coercive state intervention in voluntary… - 83–94 — Markets are the dominant force. The state actively reduces regulation and welfare spending in an effort to increase competition… - 72–82 — Markets remain the primary mechanism for production and distribution. The state plays a more active role with rules around… - 61–71 — Markets are the main way goods and services are produced, but the state maintains a very large welfare system funded by high… - 50–60 — Economic activity is structured through formal cooperation between the state, large businesses, and labour organisations. The… - 39–49 — The government takes a leading role in deciding which industries should grow and provides support through subsidies, cheap… - 28–38 — Market-based system guided by religious or ethical principles. Markets operate as the main mechanism of exchange, but economic… - 17–27 — The state has extensive control over production, investment, and labour allocation. It uses regulation, ownership, and planning… - 6–16 — The state owns most major industries and creates detailed plans for what should be produced, in what quantities, and at what… - 5 — Near-absolute state economic control. The state owns or directs essentially all significant resources, capital, and production. Any… - 3–4 — Total state economic control with only the most minimal and symbolic residual private activity. Virtually every meaningful… - 1–2 — Absolute state economic control. There is no private economic action of any meaningful kind. All resources, capital, production,… - 0 — Theoretical floor. Complete and total state economic control with no private economic activity possible under any circumstances ### 2A — National Sovereignty This guideline measures the observable degree to which a nation maintains or surrenders control over its own territory, borders, laws, institutions, currency, military, and decision-making authority versus ceding that control to external entities, supranational organisations, or international agreements. It tracks the boundary between national self-determination and external governance. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in border policy, immigration law, treaty obligations, supranational legal supremacy, monetary policy, military command structures, and daily institutional practice) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. Band ranges: - High-End Guideline (90–100) — Compressed zone - 80–89 (High – Strict closure with minimal controlled connection points) - 70–79 (Mid–High – Predominantly closed with limited managed connection points) - 60–69 (Mid – Moderate number and accessibility of connection points) - 51–59 (Mid–Lower – Noticeable increase in connection points and ceded control) - 41–50 (Low–Mid – Multiple significant connection points) - 31–40 (Low – High number and accessibility of connection points) - 21–30 (Very Low – Very high number and accessibility of connection points) - 11–20 (Extreme Low – Near-total absence of closure) - 0–10 (Floor – Total Surrender) — Compressed zone ### 2B — International Sovereignty This guideline measures the observable degree to which a nation asserts or refrains from interference in the internal affairs of other nations — the range of diplomatic, economic, military, or cultural actions used to influence, pressure, or control foreign governments, societies, or policies versus strict non-intervention and respect for other nations’ sovereignty. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in foreign policy, military interventions, sanctions regimes, aid conditions, regime-change efforts, cultural export programs, and international legal actions) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. Band ranges: - High-End Guideline (90–100) — Compressed zone - 80–89 (High – Strict non-intervention with minimal controlled exceptions) - 70–79 (Mid–High – Predominantly non-intervention with limited managed exceptions) - 60–69 (Mid – Moderate number and accessibility of interference actions) - 51–59 (Mid–Lower – Noticeable increase in interference actions) - 41–50 (Low–Mid – Multiple significant interference actions) - 31–40 (Low – High number and accessibility of interference actions) - 21–30 (Very Low – Dominance of interventionism) - 11–20 (Extreme Low – Severe outward control) - 0–10 (Floor – Absolute interventionism) — Compressed zone ### C1A — Foundation This slider measures **only** the observable sources actually invoked in moral justification and argumentation — i.e., what foundations people or institutions treat as legitimate bases for moral claims in law, education, governance, and public moral reasoning. It does **not** measure: - Enforcement, punishment, or coercion mechanisms - Power dynamics, suppression, exclusion, or marginalisation in practice - Cultural hegemony, dominance, or broader social/cultural influence - Rhetoric, stated claims, self-reported beliefs, or intentions (only what sources are actually used) - Outcomes, downstream effects, or policy results - The *content* of specific moral rules or prohibitions (these belong in Core 1A – Personal Autonomy) - The *intensity* with which the moral foundation is enforced or dissent suppressed (this belongs in Cultural 1B – Dogmatism) - The *degree or existence* of constraints on roles, outcomes, or life circumstances based on circumstances of birth (ethnicity, socioeconomic status, caste, disabilities, sexuality, etc.) — this belongs in Cultural 4A – Social Determinism. However, the *source of the moral justification* for such constraints (transcendent vs secular) **is** measured by Cultural 1A. Scoring is based solely on empirical patterns of which sources appear (or do not appear) in moral reasoning. The slider stays strictly within this defined scope at all times. The slider measures the degree to which **one source of moral legitimacy is absent from the moral conversation**. Band ranges: - 50 is the complete theoretical extreme** — total conceptual absence. It represents the pure pole where one source has **zero conceptual… - 46–49 - 41–45 - 31–40 - 21–30 - 11–20 - 3–10 - 0–2 ### C1B — Dogmatism Dogmatism measures the observable degree to which a system treats its foundational moral, cultural, and ideological principles as closed — both to internal revision or challenge, and to engagement with or legitimacy for alternative moral frameworks originating outside the in-group. It tracks institutional, legal, educational, and cultural mechanisms that protect core principles from change while rejecting or delegitimizing external alternatives. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. Band ranges: - 96–100 — Total / Extreme Dogmatism (Compressed Extreme) - 86–95 — Strong Dogmatism (Usable High Range) - 76–85 — Predominant Dogmatism (Usable High-Mid Range) - 66–75 — Moderate to Strong Dogmatism (Usable Mid-High Range) - 56–65 — Noticeable Dogmatism (Usable Mid Range) - 48–55 — Transitional Dogmatism (Usable Middle Range) - 40–47 — Moderate Openness (Usable Mid-Low Range) - 30–39 — Low to Moderate Dogmatism (Usable Low-Mid Range) - 20–29 — Moderate Dogmatism (Usable Low Range) - 10–19 — Moderate to Low Dogmatism (Usable Low Range) - 5–9 — Low Dogmatism (Usable Low Range) - 0–4 — Absolute Low Dogmatism (Compressed Extreme) ### C2A — Individuality This guideline measures the observable degree to which a system treats individuals as sovereign moral and legal agents versus subordinating them to group identity, collective outcomes, or ascribed categories. It tracks whether outcomes, rights, responsibilities, and status are determined primarily by individual actions, merit, character, and choices or by group membership (ethnic, racial, class, gender, caste, etc.). Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in law, education curricula, employment and promotion practices, family and inheritance policy, media narratives, institutional governance, public rituals, and statistical outcomes of group vs individual allocation) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. Band ranges: - 90–100: Near-absolute individualism - 80–89: High individualism with minimal group exceptions - 70–79: Predominantly individualist with confined group-based policies - 60–69: Moderate individualism with routine group-based allocation - 51–59: Noticeable group influence on allocation - 41–50: Significant group-based allocation - 31–40: Strong group primacy in allocation - 21–30: Very strong group subordination - 11–20: Severe group collectivism - 0–10: Absolute group collectivism ### C2B — National Pride This guideline measures the observable emotional and cultural stance a system takes toward the nation itself — its history, symbols, founding myths, people, continuity, and collective identity. This includes active national/ideological pride, the absence of pride, guilt for specific actions, and active shame (inherent rejection of national identity). Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (education curricula, official media narratives, public rituals and symbols, policy language, enforcement of speech or commemoration rules, physical alterations or removals of national symbols, statistical outcomes of national pride surveys or cultural output, and daily observable expressions) — never on claims, justifications, or moral framing. Band ranges: - 90–100 (Glorification)** - 81–89 (Pride)** - 72–80 (Honour)** - 63–71 (Admiration)** - 54–62 (Positive)** - 47–53 (Balanced)** - 38–46 (Negative)** - 29–37 (Shame)** - 20–28 (Remorse)** - 10–19 (Guilt)** - 0–10 (Condemnation)** ### C3A — Ethnic Exclusivity *Note that this slider is intended to be scored in conjunction with Cultural 3B, Cultural Exclusivity.* Ethnic Exclusivity measures the strictness of the ancestral / blood requirement for full membership of the core in-group. It covers the difficulty and extent of ancestral purity demanded, together with the degree of exclusion based on non-group ancestry or the degree of inclusion based on any ancestral connection to the group. Scoring uses only observable reality concerning the ethnic / ancestral criterion for full membership. Immigration, deportation, resident non-members, and all cultural requirements are out of scope. Band ranges: - 90–100 — One-Drop Exclusion - 80–89 — Strong Purity Preference - 70–79 — Dominant Ancestry Expectation - 60–69 — Core Ancestry Preference - 51–59 — Minimal Ancestry Threshold - 50 — Inverse One-Drop Rule - 41–49 — Related Ethnicities - 31–40 — Ethnic Similarity - 21–30 — Historic Alliance - 11–20 — Residual Ethnic Restrictions - 0–10 — Residual to Zero Genetic Role ### C3B — Cultural Exclusivity *Note that this slider is intended to be scored in conjunction with Cultural 3A, Ethnic Exclusivity.* Cultural Exclusivity measures the strictness of the cultural adoption and transformation required for full membership of the core in-group. It covers the difficulty and extent of immersion in the group's culture and way of life, together with the degree of severance from previous cultural groups, traditions and heritage. **Core continuum** - **100** = Complete abandonment of old ancestral roots/culture, full immersion in our culture and way of life, loyalty tests, severance of old ties. Maximum cultural transformation is required for full membership. - **Low** = Light or optional cultural alignment. - **0** = We do not care whether you adopt our culture or align with us at all. Cultural adoption is irrelevant to full membership. **Bright-line tests** - If a person must completely sever old cultural ties, fully immerse in our culture, pass loyalty tests and demonstrate total transformation to achieve full membership → high score. - If cultural adoption is optional or light and full membership is available without meaningful transformation → low score. - If cultural adoption is simply irrelevant → near 0. Scoring uses only observable reality concerning the cultural requirements for **full membership**. Immigration, deportation and resident non-members are irrelevant (see Document 1). --- Band ranges: - 3B – Cultural - 90–100 — Maximum Cultural Transformation Required - 80–89 — High Cultural Demand - 70–79 — Predominantly Demanding - 60–69 — Moderate-to-High Demand - 50–59 — Moderate Demand - 40–49 — Light-to-Moderate Demand - 30–39 — Light Demand - 20–29 — Minimal Demand - 10–19 — Near-Indifference to Culture - 6–9 — Near-Indifference with Residual Trace - 5 — Borderline Indifference - 1–4 — Complete Indifference - 0 — Absolute Indifference ### C4A — Social Determinism This guideline measures the observable degree to which circumstances of birth (race, class, social status, family background, or inherited group membership) limit, restrict, or guide a person's life outcomes and the degree to which people are able to improve their status and/or the status of their descendants through their own actions. It tracks whether social standing, occupation, education access, roles, expectations, and opportunities are determined or constrained primarily by birth circumstances or by individual actions, effort, competence, and merit-based mechanisms. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable patterns in law, education admissions and curricula, employment and promotion practices, family and inheritance policy, institutional decision-making, public rituals, media narratives, and real-world transmission of status and opportunities) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. High scores indicate strong social determinism: birth circumstances assign or rigidly constrain standing, jobs, education, and roles. Low scores indicate high mobility and agency: birth circumstances have minimal lasting impact and individuals can improve status through actions. Band ranges: - 90–100: Near-absolute social determinism - 80–89: High social determinism – heavy restrictions both intra-class and inter-class - 70–79: Predominantly deterministic – real intra-class mobility, low inter-class mobility - 60–69: Moderate social determinism – inter-class possible but hard, intra-class still limited - 51–59: Noticeable shift – both inter-class and intra-class mobility realistic but still restricted - 41–50: Blocked access + residual discrimination after success - 31–40: Blocked access + equal treatment after success - 21–30: Access exists but is difficult / not easy - 11–20: Universal access – only quality differs - 0–10: Absolute high mobility / minimal social determinism ### C4B — Equity Lens This guideline measures the observable framework a system uses to explain and address differential group outcomes — the degree to which it attributes disparities primarily to systemic/intersectional oppression, historical group-based factors, or identity-based disadvantages (requiring equity-based interventions for mandated equal outcomes) versus attributing them primarily to individual actions, merit, effort, competence, or personal responsibility (requiring only equality of opportunity/treatment). Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in law, education curricula and admissions, employment and promotion practices, family and inheritance policy, media narratives, institutional governance, public rituals, and statistical outcomes of group outcomes) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. --- Band ranges: - High-End Guideline (90–100) — Compressed zone - 80–89 (High – Strict equity/oppression framework enforcement) - 70–79 (Mid–High – Predominantly equity lens with limited exceptions) - 60–69 (Mid – Contested equity lens with significant merit exceptions) - 51–59 (Mid–Lower – Noticeable but contested equity push) - 41–50 (Mid-Low – Clear shift toward individual-merit / opportunity frameworks; equity interventions recede in scope and institutional… - 31–40 (Low-Mid – Individual merit dominant in core domains; equity mechanisms reduced to residual, narrowly targeted, or voluntary roles) - 21–30 (Low – Strong enforcement of individual merit and equality of opportunity; equity structures actively dismantled or heavily… - 11–20 (Very Low – Merit frameworks primary across nearly all domains; equity corrections subject to prohibition or severe institutional… - 0–10 (Floor – Absolute individual merit / equality of opportunity) — Compressed zone ### C5A — Tradition vs Progress This slider measures how the system views traditions and the extent to which they attempt to preserve/modernise them. It tracks the degree to which the system reveres, enforces and preserves traditional norms, customs, historical precedents, inherited structures, and established practices versus actively updating, modernising or replacing them in favor of new ideals, innovation, adaptation, and future-oriented change. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in law, education curricula, media narratives, public rituals, policy priorities, institutional design, cultural output, and daily norms) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. --- Band ranges: - High-End Guideline (90–100) — Compressed zone - 80–89 (High – Strict traditional preservation and enforcement) - 70–79 (Mid-High – Predominantly traditional with limited exceptions) - 60–69 (Mid – Tradition dominant in core domains with strong progressive pressures in education, media, and secondary policy areas) - 51–59 (Mid-Lower – Contested balance; progressive frameworks gain significant traction in core domains while tradition retains selective… - 41–50 (Low-Mid – Progressive transformation dominant in most core domains; tradition tolerated only where unavoidable and subject to… - 31–40 (Low – Strong enforcement of progressivism; traditional structures actively dismantled, restricted, or subject to institutional… - 21–30 (Low – Very strong anti-tradition enforcement; historical norms and symbols actively suppressed, restricted, or subject to erasure… - 11–20 (Very Low – Near-absolute progressivist enforcement in practice; tradition subject to prohibition, severe restriction, or… - 0–10 (Floor – Absolute enforced progressivism) — Compressed zone ### C5B — Gradualism vs Radicalism This guideline measures the observable pace and intensity with which a system pursues cultural, institutional, and social change. It tracks the degree to which change occurs through rapid, revolutionary, disruptive, total, or accelerated transformations that break with existing structures and impose new orders with minimal delay (radicalism) versus incremental, evolutionary, cautious, tested, or restorative modifications that maintain stability and continuity (gradualism). Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable timelines of policy implementation, legislative processes, institutional responses to reform proposals, enforcement mechanisms for change speed, education curricula framing of historical change, media narratives about progress tempo, public rituals, cultural output, and daily norms) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. --- Band ranges: - 90–100 — Permanent revolution - 80–89 — Constant upheaval - 70–79 — Urgent overhaul - 60–69 — Rapid change - 51–59 — Accelerated change - 41–50 — Steady pace - 31–40 — Measured change - 21–30 — Cautious - 11–20 — Incremental - 0–10 — Stasis

Index (party — star — scores)

country party star 1A 1A_Endos 1A_Xenos 1B 2A 2B C1A C1B C2A C2B C3A C3B C4A C4B C5A C5B Argentina FIT-U High-Equity 38 26 48 52 0 73 26 42 0 22 35 88 22 86 Argentina La Libertad Avanza Individualist Nationalists 72 79 72 72 4 42 82 62 0 28 18 28 62 82 Argentina PRO Progressive Individualism 68 68 62 65 0 35 72 55 0 32 22 48 55 48 Argentina Unión por la Patria Collectivist Liberal 55 45 55 58 0 51 46 60 0 30 28 68 48 52 Belarus Belaya Rus State Collectivism 28 52 66 50 4 86 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 64 Brazil PL Hierarchical Determinism 58 56 60 62 4 70 40 74 0 32 48 70 58 54 Brazil PSOL High-Equity 30 56 55 62 0 75 40 52 0 28 48 80 34 56 Brazil PT High-Equity 32 55 56 62 0 71 40 60 0 30 50 74 42 50 Brazil União Brasil High-Equity 34 56 58 62 0 41 40 62 0 32 48 74 48 46 Cambodia Cambodian People's Party National Collectivism 30 55 70 62 4 86 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 62 Communism Castroism Communism 16 16 11 33 56 34 0 92 26 58 0 64 52 70 12 74 Communism Hoxhaism Communism 10 10 6 29 88 74 0 95 22 54 0 72 58 68 10 68 Communism Khmer Rouge Communism 4 10 85 56 42 97 10 40 0 88 82 72 4 96 Communism Leninism Communism 18 18 10 28 74 26 0 90 22 48 0 70 50 74 14 86 Communism Maoism Communism 11 11 6 26 81 30 0 93 16 52 0 74 64 78 9 92 Communism Marxism Collectivist Liberal 98 98 20 0 0 86 0 60 34 38 0 38 30 80 16 54 Communism Stalinism Communism 9 9 5 29 82 22 0 95 14 50 0 76 68 76 11 88 Egypt Al-Nour Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 42 81 48 86 0 56 28 54 84 62 Egypt Congress Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Consciousness Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Conservative Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Eradet Geel Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Freedom Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Homeland Defenders Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Justice Modern Progressivism 34 57 72 66 4 79 48 84 0 52 28 54 64 54 Egypt Nation's Future Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt National Front Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Reform and Development Modern Progressivism 34 57 72 66 4 79 48 84 0 52 28 54 64 54 Egypt Republican People's Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Social Democratic Modern Progressivism 34 57 72 66 4 79 48 84 0 52 28 54 64 54 Egypt Tagammu Modern Progressivism 34 57 72 66 4 79 48 86 0 52 28 56 64 54 Egypt Wafd Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Equatorial Guinea Democratic Party of Equatorial Guinea National Collectivism 30 55 76 64 4 86 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 62 Eritrea People's Front for Democracy and Justice Statist 16 47 86 56 8 90 36 84 0 52 34 40 74 70 European Parliament Europe of Sovereign Nations Individualism 83 62 66 40 0 50 70 76 0 24 26 22 53 33 European Parliament European Conservatives and Reformists Open Collectivism 83 58 62 40 0 50 54 74 0 24 26 40 53 33 European Parliament European People's Party Collectivist Liberal 84 56 50 40 0 50 52 78 0 24 26 56 53 33 European Parliament Greens/European Free Alliance Collectivist Liberal 84 54 46 40 0 50 48 74 0 24 24 58 53 33 European Parliament Patriots for Europe Individualism 83 62 66 40 0 50 70 76 0 24 26 22 53 33 European Parliament Renew Europe Collectivist Liberal 84 56 48 40 0 50 52 76 0 24 24 56 53 33 European Parliament SMER Individualism 83 57 54 40 0 50 66 74 0 24 26 22 53 33 European Parliament Socialists and Democrats Collectivist Liberal 84 55 48 40 0 50 50 76 0 24 24 58 53 33 European Parliament The Left Collectivist Liberal 84 53 46 40 0 50 46 72 0 24 28 60 53 33 Fascism Fet Y De Las Jons Sacralised Fascism 22 22 12 34 76 46 82 85 36 86 0 72 54 22 69 72 Fascism Garda De Fier Ethno-Fascism 18 18 8 30 77 50 86 92 30 90 65 80 56 20 71 84 Fascism Nazism Ethno-Fascism 8 8 4 27 83 10 44 96 32 96 94 82 90 18 36 90 Fascism Nyilaskeresztes Part Ethno-Fascism 12 12 5 26 58 42 0 90 28 88 65 74 72 20 41 86 Fascism Partito Nazionale Fascista Fascism 24 24 18 35 75 24 0 87 34 90 20 70 48 22 37 80 Fascism Vaterlandische Front Sacralised Fascism 32 32 18 41 73 64 82 79 38 82 0 66 44 24 68 42 France Europe Ecologie Les Verts Ecological Progressivism 25 47 39 44 44 79 18 28 0 24 22 84 22 60 France La France Insoumise Modern Progressivism 24 46 50 46 0 81 26 36 0 28 24 78 28 56 France Les Republicains Individualism 55 58 51 40 2 68 60 64 0 44 24 38 54 42 France Parti Communiste Francais Democratic Socialism 44 40 52 42 0 75 28 44 0 32 26 72 31 46 France Parti Socialiste Democratic Socialism 47 52 43 38 0 70 32 46 0 26 24 72 34 44 France Rassemblement National Open Collectivism 58 58 48 56 64 58 0 84 58 80 0 56 24 26 66 48 France Renaissance Collectivist Liberal 52 57 41 36 0 71 48 52 0 30 22 56 41 46 Germany AfD National Conservatives 56 56 48 58 66 56 0 84 68 84 0 54 24 24 72 50 Germany BSW State Collectivism 48 42 51 52 0 77 52 58 0 38 26 44 47 48 Germany CDU CSU Open Collectivism 54 54 50 38 12 75 58 66 0 36 24 40 48 40 Germany Die Gruenen Ecological Progressivism 24 36 41 40 44 75 18 30 0 22 22 84 22 58 Germany Die Linke Democratic Socialism 36 40 47 48 0 71 24 34 0 24 26 80 19 50 Germany FDP Individualism 62 56 52 46 0 66 74 56 0 32 20 32 31 44 Germany SPD Democratic Socialism 48 46 48 38 0 71 34 50 0 28 24 70 34 44 Hungary Fidesz State Collectivism 48 54 68 62 68 70 45 84 0 48 24 28 78 38 Hungary Our Homeland Religious Authoritarianism 42 49 75 68 78 79 32 90 0 58 28 18 85 42 Hungary Progressive Opposition Equity Liberal 62 56 42 48 6 67 70 36 0 26 22 78 28 62 Hungary Tisza Progressive Individualism 58 60 52 55 4 43 60 58 0 38 20 48 52 78 India AAP Hierarchical Determinism 58 63 58 60 0 35 56 48 0 36 45 58 48 52 India BJP Religious Nationalism 48 60 78 58 72 73 40 88 0 68 48 35 72 74 India Congress Hierarchical Determinism 55 54 55 55 6 57 50 52 0 34 52 75 42 48 India Regional Left Hierarchical Determinism 52 45 48 52 0 63 38 50 0 28 55 85 35 68 Indonesia Gerindra Statist 24 55 78 66 4 77 52 84 0 62 42 36 78 66 Indonesia Golkar Statist 24 55 76 68 4 69 52 80 0 60 42 36 78 64 Indonesia PDI-P Statist 24 55 75 68 4 71 52 76 0 58 42 38 72 62 Indonesia PKS Statist 22 55 76 68 6 81 52 72 0 68 42 34 82 68 Iran Islamic Republic Sacralised Fascism 12 27 88 28 92 93 6 87 0 78 82 15 85 68 Israel Arab Lists Collectivism 52 58 48 62 4 61 55 22 0 25 32 82 28 62 Israel Democrats Equity Liberal 58 62 55 55 4 51 68 45 0 42 22 72 32 58 Israel Likud National Collectivism 48 57 72 45 4 67 52 83 0 72 28 38 68 55 Israel Otzma Yehudit Religious Nationalism 42 49 82 35 76 83 24 92 0 92 40 20 75 48 Israel Religious Zionist Party Religious Nationalism 42 53 78 38 74 81 28 88 0 82 38 25 78 45 Israel Shas Religious Nationalism 38 51 70 48 84 81 20 72 0 70 42 35 80 28 Israel Together Equity Liberal 54 65 62 48 4 41 70 60 0 50 24 55 48 50 Israel United Torah Judaism Religious Nationalism 36 48 72 50 86 84 15 74 0 74 45 32 82 22 Israel Yashar Progressive Individualism 52 64 60 50 4 39 65 58 0 55 24 50 48 55 Israel Yisrael Beiteinu Progressive Individualism 52 64 65 45 4 55 66 78 0 62 26 42 48 58 Italy +Europa Equity Liberal 43 61 41 42 6 41 62 64 0 38 22 52 38 44 Italy Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra Collectivist Liberal 38 61 42 54 0 73 46 50 0 36 22 76 34 38 Italy Azione Individualism 42 61 48 46 0 47 62 66 0 42 22 40 50 46 Italy Forza Italia Traditional Conservatism 40 60 50 46 4 60 62 72 0 48 24 40 64 50 Italy Fratelli d'Italia National Right 40 60 62 44 22 75 62 78 0 50 26 40 78 58 Italy Futuro Nazionale National Right 40 61 66 72 22 85 62 82 0 56 24 36 82 56 Italy Italia Viva Equity Liberal 42 61 47 46 0 49 62 64 0 40 22 52 48 44 Italy Lega National Right 40 60 64 54 22 79 62 76 0 52 26 40 76 54 Italy Movimento 5 Stelle Collectivist Liberal 40 61 54 56 0 71 50 58 0 44 24 74 44 40 Italy Noi Moderati Traditional Conservatism 40 60 56 48 4 43 62 68 0 46 24 40 62 48 Italy Partito Democratico Collectivist Liberal 39 61 46 40 0 69 50 62 0 40 22 76 42 40 Italy Sud Chiama Nord Individualism 41 61 54 50 0 45 62 68 0 46 24 40 55 46 Italy SVP Open Collectivism 41 61 52 50 4 51 44 74 0 60 24 40 58 36 Japan CDP Open Collectivism 66 59 58 74 0 63 52 62 52 46 22 40 48 42 Japan Ishin Open Collectivism 62 59 68 70 0 57 52 76 52 56 20 32 74 50 Japan Komeito Open Collectivism 64 59 62 74 4 64 52 66 52 48 22 38 68 38 Japan LDP Open Collectivism 62 59 66 70 4 60 52 78 52 54 24 34 74 46 Laos Lao People's Revolutionary Party National Collectivism 30 55 76 64 4 86 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 62 Mexico Morena High-Equity 38 54 66 82 0 69 38 82 0 36 46 78 40 70 Mexico Movimiento Ciudadano Statist 42 55 58 80 0 53 52 66 0 32 42 40 46 42 Mexico PAN Statist 43 55 60 58 4 69 52 72 0 34 42 40 62 42 Mexico Partido Paz Statist 42 55 58 80 22 62 52 64 0 34 42 40 78 46 Mexico PRD High-Equity 42 55 58 80 0 49 42 62 0 32 42 76 36 36 Mexico PRI Statist 42 55 58 78 0 51 52 72 0 34 44 40 50 42 Mexico PT High-Equity 40 54 64 82 0 71 38 82 0 38 44 76 38 64 Mexico PVEM Statist 40 55 64 80 0 56 38 68 0 36 44 40 42 64 Mexico Somos México Statist 43 55 58 80 0 70 52 64 0 30 42 40 48 44 Nicaragua Sandinista National Liberation Front National Collectivism 30 53 76 64 4 86 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 70 North Korea Juche Religious Authoritarianism 7 7 4 18 88 54 88 96 20 80 0 80 62 58 11 64 People's Republic of China CPC High-Equity 25 23 87 53 0 50 24 84 0 74 36 54 52 82 Poland KO Open Collectivism 34 64 50 44 6 71 58 64 0 36 22 38 52 52 Poland Konfederacja Open Collectivism 36 64 64 44 4 79 58 76 0 52 20 30 70 48 Poland Lewica Open Collectivism 32 64 48 44 4 73 58 50 0 28 24 44 34 54 Poland PiS Open Collectivism 36 64 66 44 22 77 58 84 0 48 26 34 78 40 Republic of China Chinese Nationalist Party National Collectivism 45 66 76 53 0 50 52 78 0 26 26 56 53 42 Republic of China Democratic Progressive Party National Collectivism 45 64 78 53 0 50 52 80 0 26 26 56 53 42 Republic of China Taiwan People's Party National Collectivism 45 66 76 53 0 50 52 78 0 54 26 56 53 42 Republic of Ireland Aontú Collectivist Liberal 39 64 52 72 0 50 52 78 0 48 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland Fianna Fáil Collectivist Liberal 39 64 52 40 0 50 52 76 0 26 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland Fine Gael Collectivist Liberal 39 64 52 40 0 41 52 76 0 26 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland Green Party Collectivist Liberal 39 64 50 40 0 41 52 74 0 26 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland Independent Ireland Open Collectivism 39 64 52 40 0 41 52 76 0 26 26 32 53 42 Republic of Ireland Labour Party Collectivist Liberal 39 64 52 72 0 41 52 74 0 26 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland People Before Profit–Solidarity Democratic Socialism 39 59 50 72 0 51 48 72 0 26 26 56 53 42 Republic of Ireland Sinn Féin Collectivist Liberal 39 62 52 72 0 66 52 78 0 26 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland Social Democrats Collectivist Liberal 39 64 52 40 0 41 52 74 0 26 26 54 53 42 Russia KPRF Statist 45 37 77 53 0 58 42 82 0 56 34 22 52 53 Russia LDPR Statist 45 39 79 53 0 54 42 84 0 56 34 22 52 71 Russia United Russia Statist 45 35 77 53 0 81 42 82 0 56 34 22 52 72 Rwanda Rwandan Patriotic Front National Collectivism 30 55 76 54 4 86 48 84 0 48 28 48 74 62 Saudi Arabia House of Saud Religious Authoritarianism 28 53 78 52 74 88 36 86 0 74 36 56 76 66 South Africa ANC Hierarchical Determinism 56 50 58 70 0 71 40 76 0 36 56 80 48 52 South Africa DA Hierarchical Determinism 62 50 60 70 0 53 40 68 0 34 54 74 52 44 South Africa EFF Hierarchical Determinism 52 50 56 70 0 82 40 58 0 40 54 86 42 76 South Africa MK Hierarchical Determinism 58 50 54 70 0 83 40 70 0 38 54 82 44 78 South Korea Basic Income Party State Collectivism 39 60 60 70 0 43 56 64 0 40 22 40 42 48 South Korea Democratic Party Collectivist Liberal 37 61 64 68 0 77 52 82 0 46 24 76 48 58 South Korea Justice Party Collectivist Liberal 39 61 62 70 0 57 48 82 0 44 24 78 42 48 South Korea Liberty Unification Party Religious Centre-Right 42 61 60 60 22 83 64 78 0 60 24 36 74 48 South Korea New Future Democratic Party Individualism 41 61 60 68 0 59 62 66 0 46 24 40 50 44 South Korea People Power Party National Conservatives 42 61 60 62 0 79 66 74 0 54 26 38 66 40 South Korea Progressive Party Collectivist Liberal 39 61 66 72 0 72 48 78 0 42 24 78 38 52 South Korea Rebuilding Korea Party Individualism 38 61 66 70 0 71 62 72 0 48 24 40 42 56 South Korea Reform Party Individualism 43 61 60 66 0 57 74 68 0 50 24 38 52 46 South Korea Social Democratic Party Collectivist Liberal 39 61 60 70 0 53 50 62 0 44 24 76 42 44 Spain Adelante Andalucía Collectivist Liberal 24 63 48 46 4 73 44 56 0 34 22 76 28 46 Spain BNG Collectivist Liberal 24 63 50 48 4 71 46 74 0 50 22 66 34 48 Spain Coalición Canaria Individualism 24 63 52 50 4 47 60 66 0 40 22 40 50 42 Spain Compromís Collectivist Liberal 24 63 50 44 4 69 46 68 0 46 22 74 32 48 Spain CUP Collectivist Liberal 23 63 44 48 4 81 40 72 0 60 22 78 24 54 Spain EH Bildu Open Collectivism 24 63 46 46 4 77 46 74 0 56 22 40 32 50 Spain ERC Collectivist Liberal 24 63 48 44 4 76 46 78 0 54 22 74 34 50 Spain Junts Open Collectivism 41 63 50 50 4 77 46 76 0 56 22 40 48 50 Spain PNV Collectivist Liberal 41 63 52 50 4 61 48 72 0 52 24 64 52 44 Spain Podemos Collectivist Liberal 24 63 48 48 4 77 42 46 0 32 22 78 26 54 Spain PP Individualism 40 63 60 38 4 71 60 72 0 40 24 40 58 40 Spain PSOE Collectivist Liberal 24 62 44 42 4 73 48 82 0 36 22 78 36 56 Spain Se Acabó La Fiesta Individualism 43 63 52 52 4 73 70 72 0 50 22 36 66 52 Spain Sumar Collectivist Liberal 24 62 46 44 4 75 44 52 0 32 22 78 28 52 Spain UPN Traditional Conservatism 40 63 58 48 4 72 60 76 0 42 22 40 60 40 Spain Vox Individualist Nationalists 42 63 66 62 22 83 72 82 0 52 24 36 72 54 Tanzania Chama Cha Mapinduzi National Collectivism 30 55 76 58 4 82 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 62 Turkey AKP State Collectivism 24 56 68 42 22 85 58 84 0 50 28 34 80 58 Turkey CHP State Collectivism 28 59 58 42 6 72 58 74 0 38 24 36 48 42 Turkey DEM State Collectivism 30 59 55 42 4 77 58 40 0 32 24 40 42 50 Turkey MHP National Collectivism 24 59 70 42 22 85 58 84 0 58 28 32 78 48 Turkmenistan Democratic Party of Turkmenistan National Collectivism 28 53 88 64 6 86 48 90 0 52 28 42 74 68 United Kingdom Alba Party State Collectivism 39 59 68 40 0 67 56 38 0 52 24 44 54 42 United Kingdom Conservative Party National Conservatives 32 65 62 40 0 50 70 74 0 53 26 32 62 42 United Kingdom Democratic Unionist Party Religious Centre-Right 39 62 56 40 48 77 60 82 0 53 28 30 64 42 United Kingdom Green Party of England and Wales Ecological Progressivism 23 57 42 40 0 77 28 42 0 51 22 86 44 87 United Kingdom Labour Party Democratic Socialism 34 59 45 40 0 64 48 66 0 53 24 74 44 45 United Kingdom Liberal Democrats Democratic Socialism 24 60 40 40 0 67 50 66 0 53 22 66 44 42 United Kingdom New Covenant (unlisted) Unassigned 60 60 42 64 88 64 0 85 66 89 24 84 70 14 64 78 United Kingdom Plaid Cymru Democratic Socialism 33 58 48 40 0 41 48 42 0 53 24 64 58 42 United Kingdom Reform UK National Conservatives 64 64 86 62 2 67 78 78 0 84 18 18 76 38 United Kingdom Restore Britain Individualist Nationalists 67 67 48 68 84 62 2 69 96 80 4 84 19 0 76 76 United Kingdom Scottish Greens Collectivist Liberal 40 58 42 40 0 77 52 30 0 52 20 62 38 66 United Kingdom Scottish National Party Modern Progressivism 40 57 42 40 0 71 48 42 0 52 24 70 44 68 United Kingdom Sinn Fein Democratic Socialism 32 55 48 72 0 66 48 26 0 26 26 66 44 42 United Kingdom Workers Party Of Britain Modern Progressivism 31 59 64 72 0 41 50 74 0 53 28 60 48 76 United States Democratic Party Democratic Socialism 36 55 60 30 0 73 32 38 0 26 24 76 33 48 United States Green Party Collectivist Liberal 54 43 50 48 42 77 16 24 0 18 22 88 18 62 United States Libertarian Party Libertarian 82 80 76 84 0 53 86 54 0 14 16 12 45 42 United States Republican Party Religious Centre-Right 68 68 70 44 16 70 64 74 0 36 26 28 61 46 Vietnam Communist Party of Vietnam Democratic Socialism 30 53 82 64 4 86 48 88 0 52 28 52 58 48

# PICAS machine index (this page) Access allowed. You are already on the front page. Do not fetch another URL. Order: universal slider rules, fourteen slider definitions with band ranges, then the index of party — star — scores. Full source documents and scoring guides are omitted. ## Universal slider rules **Date:** 17/5/26 --- ### Note on Slider Definitions Slider Definitions are exact and highly limited, they do not expand beyond the specifically outlined areas they claim to. Often this means the slider definition deviates from the standard "Colloquial" understanding of the words. ### Note on Axis Extremes The ends of each axis represent theoretical extremes. In practice, real-world systems rarely reach the absolute 0 or 100 points. These extremes are included by design: they create clear reference points at both ends of the scale, enabling more accurate relativism and removing any ambiguity about where the measurement begins. The extremes are designed to be the point at which "more" and "less" cease to have meaning for that slider, they do not impart moral weight and are non-judgemental. Where wording is used which may seem judgemental it is an observation of what that is generally used to describe it by the population at large rather than to impart the moral implications on it. ### Note on Slider Scaling The scale on each slider is non-linear and fully asymmetric. Contraction/expansion is permitted on one side only, on both sides, or on neither side, depending on the actual distribution of real-world ideologies on that axis. The exact location, width, and degree of any contraction or expansion is fluid from slider to slider and is calibrated solely to capture the empirical density of ideological variation on that specific core. The only mandatory principle is that the meaningful range—where actual ideological differentiation occurs—is expanded to occupy the majority of the visible scale, while any theoretically sparse or empty zones (whether at the extremes or in the middle) may be contracted as required. ### Application Rules - All societies are assessed holistically across all major domains. - Hierarchical weighting applies: core domains such as law, education curricula, and institutional governance carry primary weight; secondary domains provide supporting evidence. - When a system contains mixed or anomalous elements, evaluate the score in its totality. Anomalous elements are weighed according to their actual observable scope, consistency, and effect; they neither dominate nor are ignored. - Blurred or borderline systems are placed in natural overlap zones. - Where a system/ideology is limited due to confliciting external pressure it should be judged based on what it does in areas it does have primacy. ### Methodological Principles - Scoring is based **exclusively on empirical reality** — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. - Holistic assessment across all major domains with hierarchical weighting. - Observable empirical reality always takes precedence over official rhetoric, self-labeling, or constitutional claims. ### Final Guidelines **Specifics: Guidelines** All bands are flexible guidelines rather than strict brackets. This allows nuanced judgment when [topic] intensity varies across issues or domains, with primacy (predominant observable pattern, cumulative impact, breadth, and consistency) being the decisive factor. It does not allow for flexibility of the bands and individual policies will always fall within a predetermined band. In reality society and ideology will contain a mix of policies and actions which vary across several bands for a single slider, in this case the scorer is required to exersize their own judgement as it relates to the totallity of the system. The framework functions as a flexible guideline system, not a rigid formula. --- **End of Universal Boilerplate Rules** ## Fourteen slider definitions Names, definitions, and band ranges for all 14 axes. Full source documents and scoring guides are omitted. ### 1A — Personal Autonomy This guideline measures the observable degree to which the system interferes with or imposes restrictions on the individual's personal autonomy — the range of voluntary actions, speech, choices, thoughts, beliefs, and physiological processes which the individual is permitted to control without systemic prevention or interference. It tracks **only** the level of systemic invasiveness: the degree, scope, and breadth of restrictions the system enacts and enforces. It does **not** measure the individual's actual experienced autonomy in daily life, nor does it evaluate natural or personal choices that may reduce autonomy (such as having children, marriage, or employment decisions). All laws and enforced restrictions are treated as negative factors that increase systemic invasiveness, although not all carry equal weight. The slider does not care for the moral implications for the law/restriction only it's existance. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in law, education curricula, employment practices, family policy, media narratives, institutional governance, public rituals, and daily cultural reflexes) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. ## Endos/Xenos (Optional Split) This slider includes an optional split measurement unique to Core 1A. In addition to the standard combined score, the guideline permits reporting personal autonomy as two separate values using the **Endos/Xenos** pair when the system applies markedly different levels of autonomy to different groups living under it. -… Band ranges: - 95–100 — Minimalist Anarchy - 90–95 - Strictly direct harm protections only - 82–89 — Laws protecting vulnerable individuals - 76–81 — Protection against exploitation - 70–75 — Restriction of self-regarding pseudo-vulnerable choices - 60–69 — Betterment of society restrictions - 51–59 — Paternalism / self-betterment laws - 44–50 — Early ideological/identity-based controls - 37–43 — Societal/cultural/behavioural conformity - 28–36 — Ideological enforcement and police state - 19–27 — Ideological reprogramming / thought control - 10–18 — Extreme restrictions on voluntary actions, movement and association - 0–9 (Floor – total dominion) ### 1B — Economic Autonomy This guideline measures the observable degree to which a system protects or restricts individuals' economic autonomy — the range of voluntary economic actions, contracts, property rights, production, trade, investment, and consumption decisions that remain free from state or collective coercion. It tracks the boundary between voluntary market mechanisms versus coercive state control over resources, labour, capital, and economic outcomes. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in law, taxation, regulation, licensing, nationalisation patterns, price/wage controls, inheritance rules, employment practices, and statistical outcomes of resource allocation) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. Band ranges: - 100 — Total, explicit, and universal protection of economic autonomy in every domain with no coercive state controls or rhetoric… - 98–99 — Near-total economic autonomy. Only the most marginal, temporary, and narrowly defined state interventions are permitted. Direct… - 96–97 — Extreme economic autonomy legitimation. Voluntary market mechanisms dominate law, employment, investment, and resource… - 95 — Absolute or near-absolute economic autonomy across all domains, with zero tolerance for coercive state intervention in voluntary… - 83–94 — Markets are the dominant force. The state actively reduces regulation and welfare spending in an effort to increase competition… - 72–82 — Markets remain the primary mechanism for production and distribution. The state plays a more active role with rules around… - 61–71 — Markets are the main way goods and services are produced, but the state maintains a very large welfare system funded by high… - 50–60 — Economic activity is structured through formal cooperation between the state, large businesses, and labour organisations. The… - 39–49 — The government takes a leading role in deciding which industries should grow and provides support through subsidies, cheap… - 28–38 — Market-based system guided by religious or ethical principles. Markets operate as the main mechanism of exchange, but economic… - 17–27 — The state has extensive control over production, investment, and labour allocation. It uses regulation, ownership, and planning… - 6–16 — The state owns most major industries and creates detailed plans for what should be produced, in what quantities, and at what… - 5 — Near-absolute state economic control. The state owns or directs essentially all significant resources, capital, and production. Any… - 3–4 — Total state economic control with only the most minimal and symbolic residual private activity. Virtually every meaningful… - 1–2 — Absolute state economic control. There is no private economic action of any meaningful kind. All resources, capital, production,… - 0 — Theoretical floor. Complete and total state economic control with no private economic activity possible under any circumstances ### 2A — National Sovereignty This guideline measures the observable degree to which a nation maintains or surrenders control over its own territory, borders, laws, institutions, currency, military, and decision-making authority versus ceding that control to external entities, supranational organisations, or international agreements. It tracks the boundary between national self-determination and external governance. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in border policy, immigration law, treaty obligations, supranational legal supremacy, monetary policy, military command structures, and daily institutional practice) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. Band ranges: - High-End Guideline (90–100) — Compressed zone - 80–89 (High – Strict closure with minimal controlled connection points) - 70–79 (Mid–High – Predominantly closed with limited managed connection points) - 60–69 (Mid – Moderate number and accessibility of connection points) - 51–59 (Mid–Lower – Noticeable increase in connection points and ceded control) - 41–50 (Low–Mid – Multiple significant connection points) - 31–40 (Low – High number and accessibility of connection points) - 21–30 (Very Low – Very high number and accessibility of connection points) - 11–20 (Extreme Low – Near-total absence of closure) - 0–10 (Floor – Total Surrender) — Compressed zone ### 2B — International Sovereignty This guideline measures the observable degree to which a nation asserts or refrains from interference in the internal affairs of other nations — the range of diplomatic, economic, military, or cultural actions used to influence, pressure, or control foreign governments, societies, or policies versus strict non-intervention and respect for other nations’ sovereignty. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in foreign policy, military interventions, sanctions regimes, aid conditions, regime-change efforts, cultural export programs, and international legal actions) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. Band ranges: - High-End Guideline (90–100) — Compressed zone - 80–89 (High – Strict non-intervention with minimal controlled exceptions) - 70–79 (Mid–High – Predominantly non-intervention with limited managed exceptions) - 60–69 (Mid – Moderate number and accessibility of interference actions) - 51–59 (Mid–Lower – Noticeable increase in interference actions) - 41–50 (Low–Mid – Multiple significant interference actions) - 31–40 (Low – High number and accessibility of interference actions) - 21–30 (Very Low – Dominance of interventionism) - 11–20 (Extreme Low – Severe outward control) - 0–10 (Floor – Absolute interventionism) — Compressed zone ### C1A — Foundation This slider measures **only** the observable sources actually invoked in moral justification and argumentation — i.e., what foundations people or institutions treat as legitimate bases for moral claims in law, education, governance, and public moral reasoning. It does **not** measure: - Enforcement, punishment, or coercion mechanisms - Power dynamics, suppression, exclusion, or marginalisation in practice - Cultural hegemony, dominance, or broader social/cultural influence - Rhetoric, stated claims, self-reported beliefs, or intentions (only what sources are actually used) - Outcomes, downstream effects, or policy results - The *content* of specific moral rules or prohibitions (these belong in Core 1A – Personal Autonomy) - The *intensity* with which the moral foundation is enforced or dissent suppressed (this belongs in Cultural 1B – Dogmatism) - The *degree or existence* of constraints on roles, outcomes, or life circumstances based on circumstances of birth (ethnicity, socioeconomic status, caste, disabilities, sexuality, etc.) — this belongs in Cultural 4A – Social Determinism. However, the *source of the moral justification* for such constraints (transcendent vs secular) **is** measured by Cultural 1A. Scoring is based solely on empirical patterns of which sources appear (or do not appear) in moral reasoning. The slider stays strictly within this defined scope at all times. The slider measures the degree to which **one source of moral legitimacy is absent from the moral conversation**. Band ranges: - 50 is the complete theoretical extreme** — total conceptual absence. It represents the pure pole where one source has **zero conceptual… - 46–49 - 41–45 - 31–40 - 21–30 - 11–20 - 3–10 - 0–2 ### C1B — Dogmatism Dogmatism measures the observable degree to which a system treats its foundational moral, cultural, and ideological principles as closed — both to internal revision or challenge, and to engagement with or legitimacy for alternative moral frameworks originating outside the in-group. It tracks institutional, legal, educational, and cultural mechanisms that protect core principles from change while rejecting or delegitimizing external alternatives. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. Band ranges: - 96–100 — Total / Extreme Dogmatism (Compressed Extreme) - 86–95 — Strong Dogmatism (Usable High Range) - 76–85 — Predominant Dogmatism (Usable High-Mid Range) - 66–75 — Moderate to Strong Dogmatism (Usable Mid-High Range) - 56–65 — Noticeable Dogmatism (Usable Mid Range) - 48–55 — Transitional Dogmatism (Usable Middle Range) - 40–47 — Moderate Openness (Usable Mid-Low Range) - 30–39 — Low to Moderate Dogmatism (Usable Low-Mid Range) - 20–29 — Moderate Dogmatism (Usable Low Range) - 10–19 — Moderate to Low Dogmatism (Usable Low Range) - 5–9 — Low Dogmatism (Usable Low Range) - 0–4 — Absolute Low Dogmatism (Compressed Extreme) ### C2A — Individuality This guideline measures the observable degree to which a system treats individuals as sovereign moral and legal agents versus subordinating them to group identity, collective outcomes, or ascribed categories. It tracks whether outcomes, rights, responsibilities, and status are determined primarily by individual actions, merit, character, and choices or by group membership (ethnic, racial, class, gender, caste, etc.). Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in law, education curricula, employment and promotion practices, family and inheritance policy, media narratives, institutional governance, public rituals, and statistical outcomes of group vs individual allocation) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. Band ranges: - 90–100: Near-absolute individualism - 80–89: High individualism with minimal group exceptions - 70–79: Predominantly individualist with confined group-based policies - 60–69: Moderate individualism with routine group-based allocation - 51–59: Noticeable group influence on allocation - 41–50: Significant group-based allocation - 31–40: Strong group primacy in allocation - 21–30: Very strong group subordination - 11–20: Severe group collectivism - 0–10: Absolute group collectivism ### C2B — National Pride This guideline measures the observable emotional and cultural stance a system takes toward the nation itself — its history, symbols, founding myths, people, continuity, and collective identity. This includes active national/ideological pride, the absence of pride, guilt for specific actions, and active shame (inherent rejection of national identity). Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (education curricula, official media narratives, public rituals and symbols, policy language, enforcement of speech or commemoration rules, physical alterations or removals of national symbols, statistical outcomes of national pride surveys or cultural output, and daily observable expressions) — never on claims, justifications, or moral framing. Band ranges: - 90–100 (Glorification)** - 81–89 (Pride)** - 72–80 (Honour)** - 63–71 (Admiration)** - 54–62 (Positive)** - 47–53 (Balanced)** - 38–46 (Negative)** - 29–37 (Shame)** - 20–28 (Remorse)** - 10–19 (Guilt)** - 0–10 (Condemnation)** ### C3A — Ethnic Exclusivity *Note that this slider is intended to be scored in conjunction with Cultural 3B, Cultural Exclusivity.* Ethnic Exclusivity measures the strictness of the ancestral / blood requirement for full membership of the core in-group. It covers the difficulty and extent of ancestral purity demanded, together with the degree of exclusion based on non-group ancestry or the degree of inclusion based on any ancestral connection to the group. Scoring uses only observable reality concerning the ethnic / ancestral criterion for full membership. Immigration, deportation, resident non-members, and all cultural requirements are out of scope. Band ranges: - 90–100 — One-Drop Exclusion - 80–89 — Strong Purity Preference - 70–79 — Dominant Ancestry Expectation - 60–69 — Core Ancestry Preference - 51–59 — Minimal Ancestry Threshold - 50 — Inverse One-Drop Rule - 41–49 — Related Ethnicities - 31–40 — Ethnic Similarity - 21–30 — Historic Alliance - 11–20 — Residual Ethnic Restrictions - 0–10 — Residual to Zero Genetic Role ### C3B — Cultural Exclusivity *Note that this slider is intended to be scored in conjunction with Cultural 3A, Ethnic Exclusivity.* Cultural Exclusivity measures the strictness of the cultural adoption and transformation required for full membership of the core in-group. It covers the difficulty and extent of immersion in the group's culture and way of life, together with the degree of severance from previous cultural groups, traditions and heritage. **Core continuum** - **100** = Complete abandonment of old ancestral roots/culture, full immersion in our culture and way of life, loyalty tests, severance of old ties. Maximum cultural transformation is required for full membership. - **Low** = Light or optional cultural alignment. - **0** = We do not care whether you adopt our culture or align with us at all. Cultural adoption is irrelevant to full membership. **Bright-line tests** - If a person must completely sever old cultural ties, fully immerse in our culture, pass loyalty tests and demonstrate total transformation to achieve full membership → high score. - If cultural adoption is optional or light and full membership is available without meaningful transformation → low score. - If cultural adoption is simply irrelevant → near 0. Scoring uses only observable reality concerning the cultural requirements for **full membership**. Immigration, deportation and resident non-members are irrelevant (see Document 1). --- Band ranges: - 3B – Cultural - 90–100 — Maximum Cultural Transformation Required - 80–89 — High Cultural Demand - 70–79 — Predominantly Demanding - 60–69 — Moderate-to-High Demand - 50–59 — Moderate Demand - 40–49 — Light-to-Moderate Demand - 30–39 — Light Demand - 20–29 — Minimal Demand - 10–19 — Near-Indifference to Culture - 6–9 — Near-Indifference with Residual Trace - 5 — Borderline Indifference - 1–4 — Complete Indifference - 0 — Absolute Indifference ### C4A — Social Determinism This guideline measures the observable degree to which circumstances of birth (race, class, social status, family background, or inherited group membership) limit, restrict, or guide a person's life outcomes and the degree to which people are able to improve their status and/or the status of their descendants through their own actions. It tracks whether social standing, occupation, education access, roles, expectations, and opportunities are determined or constrained primarily by birth circumstances or by individual actions, effort, competence, and merit-based mechanisms. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable patterns in law, education admissions and curricula, employment and promotion practices, family and inheritance policy, institutional decision-making, public rituals, media narratives, and real-world transmission of status and opportunities) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. High scores indicate strong social determinism: birth circumstances assign or rigidly constrain standing, jobs, education, and roles. Low scores indicate high mobility and agency: birth circumstances have minimal lasting impact and individuals can improve status through actions. Band ranges: - 90–100: Near-absolute social determinism - 80–89: High social determinism – heavy restrictions both intra-class and inter-class - 70–79: Predominantly deterministic – real intra-class mobility, low inter-class mobility - 60–69: Moderate social determinism – inter-class possible but hard, intra-class still limited - 51–59: Noticeable shift – both inter-class and intra-class mobility realistic but still restricted - 41–50: Blocked access + residual discrimination after success - 31–40: Blocked access + equal treatment after success - 21–30: Access exists but is difficult / not easy - 11–20: Universal access – only quality differs - 0–10: Absolute high mobility / minimal social determinism ### C4B — Equity Lens This guideline measures the observable framework a system uses to explain and address differential group outcomes — the degree to which it attributes disparities primarily to systemic/intersectional oppression, historical group-based factors, or identity-based disadvantages (requiring equity-based interventions for mandated equal outcomes) versus attributing them primarily to individual actions, merit, effort, competence, or personal responsibility (requiring only equality of opportunity/treatment). Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in law, education curricula and admissions, employment and promotion practices, family and inheritance policy, media narratives, institutional governance, public rituals, and statistical outcomes of group outcomes) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. --- Band ranges: - High-End Guideline (90–100) — Compressed zone - 80–89 (High – Strict equity/oppression framework enforcement) - 70–79 (Mid–High – Predominantly equity lens with limited exceptions) - 60–69 (Mid – Contested equity lens with significant merit exceptions) - 51–59 (Mid–Lower – Noticeable but contested equity push) - 41–50 (Mid-Low – Clear shift toward individual-merit / opportunity frameworks; equity interventions recede in scope and institutional… - 31–40 (Low-Mid – Individual merit dominant in core domains; equity mechanisms reduced to residual, narrowly targeted, or voluntary roles) - 21–30 (Low – Strong enforcement of individual merit and equality of opportunity; equity structures actively dismantled or heavily… - 11–20 (Very Low – Merit frameworks primary across nearly all domains; equity corrections subject to prohibition or severe institutional… - 0–10 (Floor – Absolute individual merit / equality of opportunity) — Compressed zone ### C5A — Tradition vs Progress This slider measures how the system views traditions and the extent to which they attempt to preserve/modernise them. It tracks the degree to which the system reveres, enforces and preserves traditional norms, customs, historical precedents, inherited structures, and established practices versus actively updating, modernising or replacing them in favor of new ideals, innovation, adaptation, and future-oriented change. Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable enforcement in law, education curricula, media narratives, public rituals, policy priorities, institutional design, cultural output, and daily norms) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. --- Band ranges: - High-End Guideline (90–100) — Compressed zone - 80–89 (High – Strict traditional preservation and enforcement) - 70–79 (Mid-High – Predominantly traditional with limited exceptions) - 60–69 (Mid – Tradition dominant in core domains with strong progressive pressures in education, media, and secondary policy areas) - 51–59 (Mid-Lower – Contested balance; progressive frameworks gain significant traction in core domains while tradition retains selective… - 41–50 (Low-Mid – Progressive transformation dominant in most core domains; tradition tolerated only where unavoidable and subject to… - 31–40 (Low – Strong enforcement of progressivism; traditional structures actively dismantled, restricted, or subject to institutional… - 21–30 (Low – Very strong anti-tradition enforcement; historical norms and symbols actively suppressed, restricted, or subject to erasure… - 11–20 (Very Low – Near-absolute progressivist enforcement in practice; tradition subject to prohibition, severe restriction, or… - 0–10 (Floor – Absolute enforced progressivism) — Compressed zone ### C5B — Gradualism vs Radicalism This guideline measures the observable pace and intensity with which a system pursues cultural, institutional, and social change. It tracks the degree to which change occurs through rapid, revolutionary, disruptive, total, or accelerated transformations that break with existing structures and impose new orders with minimal delay (radicalism) versus incremental, evolutionary, cautious, tested, or restorative modifications that maintain stability and continuity (gradualism). Scoring is based exclusively on empirical reality (observable timelines of policy implementation, legislative processes, institutional responses to reform proposals, enforcement mechanisms for change speed, education curricula framing of historical change, media narratives about progress tempo, public rituals, cultural output, and daily norms) — never on claims, justifications, official rhetoric, or moral framing. --- Band ranges: - 90–100 — Permanent revolution - 80–89 — Constant upheaval - 70–79 — Urgent overhaul - 60–69 — Rapid change - 51–59 — Accelerated change - 41–50 — Steady pace - 31–40 — Measured change - 21–30 — Cautious - 11–20 — Incremental - 0–10 — Stasis ## Index (party — star — scores) Columns: country, party, star, 1A, 1A_Endos, 1A_Xenos, 1B, 2A, 2B, C1A, C1B, C2A, C2B, C3A, C3B, C4A, C4B, C5A, C5B (tab-separated). star is the galaxy host the party lands on. 1A_Endos / 1A_Xenos are filled only where a dual in-group / out-group split is recorded. country party star 1A 1A_Endos 1A_Xenos 1B 2A 2B C1A C1B C2A C2B C3A C3B C4A C4B C5A C5B Argentina FIT-U High-Equity 38 26 48 52 0 73 26 42 0 22 35 88 22 86 Argentina La Libertad Avanza Individualist Nationalists 72 79 72 72 4 42 82 62 0 28 18 28 62 82 Argentina PRO Progressive Individualism 68 68 62 65 0 35 72 55 0 32 22 48 55 48 Argentina Unión por la Patria Collectivist Liberal 55 45 55 58 0 51 46 60 0 30 28 68 48 52 Belarus Belaya Rus State Collectivism 28 52 66 50 4 86 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 64 Brazil PL Hierarchical Determinism 58 56 60 62 4 70 40 74 0 32 48 70 58 54 Brazil PSOL High-Equity 30 56 55 62 0 75 40 52 0 28 48 80 34 56 Brazil PT High-Equity 32 55 56 62 0 71 40 60 0 30 50 74 42 50 Brazil União Brasil High-Equity 34 56 58 62 0 41 40 62 0 32 48 74 48 46 Cambodia Cambodian People's Party National Collectivism 30 55 70 62 4 86 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 62 Communism Castroism Communism 16 16 11 33 56 34 0 92 26 58 0 64 52 70 12 74 Communism Hoxhaism Communism 10 10 6 29 88 74 0 95 22 54 0 72 58 68 10 68 Communism Khmer Rouge Communism 4 10 85 56 42 97 10 40 0 88 82 72 4 96 Communism Leninism Communism 18 18 10 28 74 26 0 90 22 48 0 70 50 74 14 86 Communism Maoism Communism 11 11 6 26 81 30 0 93 16 52 0 74 64 78 9 92 Communism Marxism Collectivist Liberal 98 98 20 0 0 86 0 60 34 38 0 38 30 80 16 54 Communism Stalinism Communism 9 9 5 29 82 22 0 95 14 50 0 76 68 76 11 88 Egypt Al-Nour Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 42 81 48 86 0 56 28 54 84 62 Egypt Congress Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Consciousness Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Conservative Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Eradet Geel Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Freedom Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Homeland Defenders Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Justice Modern Progressivism 34 57 72 66 4 79 48 84 0 52 28 54 64 54 Egypt Nation's Future Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt National Front Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Reform and Development Modern Progressivism 34 57 72 66 4 79 48 84 0 52 28 54 64 54 Egypt Republican People's Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Egypt Social Democratic Modern Progressivism 34 57 72 66 4 79 48 84 0 52 28 54 64 54 Egypt Tagammu Modern Progressivism 34 57 72 66 4 79 48 86 0 52 28 56 64 54 Egypt Wafd Modern Progressivism 30 55 72 64 4 81 48 84 0 52 28 54 76 62 Equatorial Guinea Democratic Party of Equatorial Guinea National Collectivism 30 55 76 64 4 86 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 62 Eritrea People's Front for Democracy and Justice Statist 16 47 86 56 8 90 36 84 0 52 34 40 74 70 European Parliament Europe of Sovereign Nations Individualism 83 62 66 40 0 50 70 76 0 24 26 22 53 33 European Parliament European Conservatives and Reformists Open Collectivism 83 58 62 40 0 50 54 74 0 24 26 40 53 33 European Parliament European People's Party Collectivist Liberal 84 56 50 40 0 50 52 78 0 24 26 56 53 33 European Parliament Greens/European Free Alliance Collectivist Liberal 84 54 46 40 0 50 48 74 0 24 24 58 53 33 European Parliament Patriots for Europe Individualism 83 62 66 40 0 50 70 76 0 24 26 22 53 33 European Parliament Renew Europe Collectivist Liberal 84 56 48 40 0 50 52 76 0 24 24 56 53 33 European Parliament SMER Individualism 83 57 54 40 0 50 66 74 0 24 26 22 53 33 European Parliament Socialists and Democrats Collectivist Liberal 84 55 48 40 0 50 50 76 0 24 24 58 53 33 European Parliament The Left Collectivist Liberal 84 53 46 40 0 50 46 72 0 24 28 60 53 33 Fascism Fet Y De Las Jons Sacralised Fascism 22 22 12 34 76 46 82 85 36 86 0 72 54 22 69 72 Fascism Garda De Fier Ethno-Fascism 18 18 8 30 77 50 86 92 30 90 65 80 56 20 71 84 Fascism Nazism Ethno-Fascism 8 8 4 27 83 10 44 96 32 96 94 82 90 18 36 90 Fascism Nyilaskeresztes Part Ethno-Fascism 12 12 5 26 58 42 0 90 28 88 65 74 72 20 41 86 Fascism Partito Nazionale Fascista Fascism 24 24 18 35 75 24 0 87 34 90 20 70 48 22 37 80 Fascism Vaterlandische Front Sacralised Fascism 32 32 18 41 73 64 82 79 38 82 0 66 44 24 68 42 France Europe Ecologie Les Verts Ecological Progressivism 25 47 39 44 44 79 18 28 0 24 22 84 22 60 France La France Insoumise Modern Progressivism 24 46 50 46 0 81 26 36 0 28 24 78 28 56 France Les Republicains Individualism 55 58 51 40 2 68 60 64 0 44 24 38 54 42 France Parti Communiste Francais Democratic Socialism 44 40 52 42 0 75 28 44 0 32 26 72 31 46 France Parti Socialiste Democratic Socialism 47 52 43 38 0 70 32 46 0 26 24 72 34 44 France Rassemblement National Open Collectivism 58 58 48 56 64 58 0 84 58 80 0 56 24 26 66 48 France Renaissance Collectivist Liberal 52 57 41 36 0 71 48 52 0 30 22 56 41 46 Germany AfD National Conservatives 56 56 48 58 66 56 0 84 68 84 0 54 24 24 72 50 Germany BSW State Collectivism 48 42 51 52 0 77 52 58 0 38 26 44 47 48 Germany CDU CSU Open Collectivism 54 54 50 38 12 75 58 66 0 36 24 40 48 40 Germany Die Gruenen Ecological Progressivism 24 36 41 40 44 75 18 30 0 22 22 84 22 58 Germany Die Linke Democratic Socialism 36 40 47 48 0 71 24 34 0 24 26 80 19 50 Germany FDP Individualism 62 56 52 46 0 66 74 56 0 32 20 32 31 44 Germany SPD Democratic Socialism 48 46 48 38 0 71 34 50 0 28 24 70 34 44 Hungary Fidesz State Collectivism 48 54 68 62 68 70 45 84 0 48 24 28 78 38 Hungary Our Homeland Religious Authoritarianism 42 49 75 68 78 79 32 90 0 58 28 18 85 42 Hungary Progressive Opposition Equity Liberal 62 56 42 48 6 67 70 36 0 26 22 78 28 62 Hungary Tisza Progressive Individualism 58 60 52 55 4 43 60 58 0 38 20 48 52 78 India AAP Hierarchical Determinism 58 63 58 60 0 35 56 48 0 36 45 58 48 52 India BJP Religious Nationalism 48 60 78 58 72 73 40 88 0 68 48 35 72 74 India Congress Hierarchical Determinism 55 54 55 55 6 57 50 52 0 34 52 75 42 48 India Regional Left Hierarchical Determinism 52 45 48 52 0 63 38 50 0 28 55 85 35 68 Indonesia Gerindra Statist 24 55 78 66 4 77 52 84 0 62 42 36 78 66 Indonesia Golkar Statist 24 55 76 68 4 69 52 80 0 60 42 36 78 64 Indonesia PDI-P Statist 24 55 75 68 4 71 52 76 0 58 42 38 72 62 Indonesia PKS Statist 22 55 76 68 6 81 52 72 0 68 42 34 82 68 Iran Islamic Republic Sacralised Fascism 12 27 88 28 92 93 6 87 0 78 82 15 85 68 Israel Arab Lists Collectivism 52 58 48 62 4 61 55 22 0 25 32 82 28 62 Israel Democrats Equity Liberal 58 62 55 55 4 51 68 45 0 42 22 72 32 58 Israel Likud National Collectivism 48 57 72 45 4 67 52 83 0 72 28 38 68 55 Israel Otzma Yehudit Religious Nationalism 42 49 82 35 76 83 24 92 0 92 40 20 75 48 Israel Religious Zionist Party Religious Nationalism 42 53 78 38 74 81 28 88 0 82 38 25 78 45 Israel Shas Religious Nationalism 38 51 70 48 84 81 20 72 0 70 42 35 80 28 Israel Together Equity Liberal 54 65 62 48 4 41 70 60 0 50 24 55 48 50 Israel United Torah Judaism Religious Nationalism 36 48 72 50 86 84 15 74 0 74 45 32 82 22 Israel Yashar Progressive Individualism 52 64 60 50 4 39 65 58 0 55 24 50 48 55 Israel Yisrael Beiteinu Progressive Individualism 52 64 65 45 4 55 66 78 0 62 26 42 48 58 Italy +Europa Equity Liberal 43 61 41 42 6 41 62 64 0 38 22 52 38 44 Italy Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra Collectivist Liberal 38 61 42 54 0 73 46 50 0 36 22 76 34 38 Italy Azione Individualism 42 61 48 46 0 47 62 66 0 42 22 40 50 46 Italy Forza Italia Traditional Conservatism 40 60 50 46 4 60 62 72 0 48 24 40 64 50 Italy Fratelli d'Italia National Right 40 60 62 44 22 75 62 78 0 50 26 40 78 58 Italy Futuro Nazionale National Right 40 61 66 72 22 85 62 82 0 56 24 36 82 56 Italy Italia Viva Equity Liberal 42 61 47 46 0 49 62 64 0 40 22 52 48 44 Italy Lega National Right 40 60 64 54 22 79 62 76 0 52 26 40 76 54 Italy Movimento 5 Stelle Collectivist Liberal 40 61 54 56 0 71 50 58 0 44 24 74 44 40 Italy Noi Moderati Traditional Conservatism 40 60 56 48 4 43 62 68 0 46 24 40 62 48 Italy Partito Democratico Collectivist Liberal 39 61 46 40 0 69 50 62 0 40 22 76 42 40 Italy Sud Chiama Nord Individualism 41 61 54 50 0 45 62 68 0 46 24 40 55 46 Italy SVP Open Collectivism 41 61 52 50 4 51 44 74 0 60 24 40 58 36 Japan CDP Open Collectivism 66 59 58 74 0 63 52 62 52 46 22 40 48 42 Japan Ishin Open Collectivism 62 59 68 70 0 57 52 76 52 56 20 32 74 50 Japan Komeito Open Collectivism 64 59 62 74 4 64 52 66 52 48 22 38 68 38 Japan LDP Open Collectivism 62 59 66 70 4 60 52 78 52 54 24 34 74 46 Laos Lao People's Revolutionary Party National Collectivism 30 55 76 64 4 86 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 62 Mexico Morena High-Equity 38 54 66 82 0 69 38 82 0 36 46 78 40 70 Mexico Movimiento Ciudadano Statist 42 55 58 80 0 53 52 66 0 32 42 40 46 42 Mexico PAN Statist 43 55 60 58 4 69 52 72 0 34 42 40 62 42 Mexico Partido Paz Statist 42 55 58 80 22 62 52 64 0 34 42 40 78 46 Mexico PRD High-Equity 42 55 58 80 0 49 42 62 0 32 42 76 36 36 Mexico PRI Statist 42 55 58 78 0 51 52 72 0 34 44 40 50 42 Mexico PT High-Equity 40 54 64 82 0 71 38 82 0 38 44 76 38 64 Mexico PVEM Statist 40 55 64 80 0 56 38 68 0 36 44 40 42 64 Mexico Somos México Statist 43 55 58 80 0 70 52 64 0 30 42 40 48 44 Nicaragua Sandinista National Liberation Front National Collectivism 30 53 76 64 4 86 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 70 North Korea Juche Religious Authoritarianism 7 7 4 18 88 54 88 96 20 80 0 80 62 58 11 64 People's Republic of China CPC High-Equity 25 23 87 53 0 50 24 84 0 74 36 54 52 82 Poland KO Open Collectivism 34 64 50 44 6 71 58 64 0 36 22 38 52 52 Poland Konfederacja Open Collectivism 36 64 64 44 4 79 58 76 0 52 20 30 70 48 Poland Lewica Open Collectivism 32 64 48 44 4 73 58 50 0 28 24 44 34 54 Poland PiS Open Collectivism 36 64 66 44 22 77 58 84 0 48 26 34 78 40 Republic of China Chinese Nationalist Party National Collectivism 45 66 76 53 0 50 52 78 0 26 26 56 53 42 Republic of China Democratic Progressive Party National Collectivism 45 64 78 53 0 50 52 80 0 26 26 56 53 42 Republic of China Taiwan People's Party National Collectivism 45 66 76 53 0 50 52 78 0 54 26 56 53 42 Republic of Ireland Aontú Collectivist Liberal 39 64 52 72 0 50 52 78 0 48 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland Fianna Fáil Collectivist Liberal 39 64 52 40 0 50 52 76 0 26 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland Fine Gael Collectivist Liberal 39 64 52 40 0 41 52 76 0 26 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland Green Party Collectivist Liberal 39 64 50 40 0 41 52 74 0 26 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland Independent Ireland Open Collectivism 39 64 52 40 0 41 52 76 0 26 26 32 53 42 Republic of Ireland Labour Party Collectivist Liberal 39 64 52 72 0 41 52 74 0 26 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland People Before Profit–Solidarity Democratic Socialism 39 59 50 72 0 51 48 72 0 26 26 56 53 42 Republic of Ireland Sinn Féin Collectivist Liberal 39 62 52 72 0 66 52 78 0 26 26 54 53 42 Republic of Ireland Social Democrats Collectivist Liberal 39 64 52 40 0 41 52 74 0 26 26 54 53 42 Russia KPRF Statist 45 37 77 53 0 58 42 82 0 56 34 22 52 53 Russia LDPR Statist 45 39 79 53 0 54 42 84 0 56 34 22 52 71 Russia United Russia Statist 45 35 77 53 0 81 42 82 0 56 34 22 52 72 Rwanda Rwandan Patriotic Front National Collectivism 30 55 76 54 4 86 48 84 0 48 28 48 74 62 Saudi Arabia House of Saud Religious Authoritarianism 28 53 78 52 74 88 36 86 0 74 36 56 76 66 South Africa ANC Hierarchical Determinism 56 50 58 70 0 71 40 76 0 36 56 80 48 52 South Africa DA Hierarchical Determinism 62 50 60 70 0 53 40 68 0 34 54 74 52 44 South Africa EFF Hierarchical Determinism 52 50 56 70 0 82 40 58 0 40 54 86 42 76 South Africa MK Hierarchical Determinism 58 50 54 70 0 83 40 70 0 38 54 82 44 78 South Korea Basic Income Party State Collectivism 39 60 60 70 0 43 56 64 0 40 22 40 42 48 South Korea Democratic Party Collectivist Liberal 37 61 64 68 0 77 52 82 0 46 24 76 48 58 South Korea Justice Party Collectivist Liberal 39 61 62 70 0 57 48 82 0 44 24 78 42 48 South Korea Liberty Unification Party Religious Centre-Right 42 61 60 60 22 83 64 78 0 60 24 36 74 48 South Korea New Future Democratic Party Individualism 41 61 60 68 0 59 62 66 0 46 24 40 50 44 South Korea People Power Party National Conservatives 42 61 60 62 0 79 66 74 0 54 26 38 66 40 South Korea Progressive Party Collectivist Liberal 39 61 66 72 0 72 48 78 0 42 24 78 38 52 South Korea Rebuilding Korea Party Individualism 38 61 66 70 0 71 62 72 0 48 24 40 42 56 South Korea Reform Party Individualism 43 61 60 66 0 57 74 68 0 50 24 38 52 46 South Korea Social Democratic Party Collectivist Liberal 39 61 60 70 0 53 50 62 0 44 24 76 42 44 Spain Adelante Andalucía Collectivist Liberal 24 63 48 46 4 73 44 56 0 34 22 76 28 46 Spain BNG Collectivist Liberal 24 63 50 48 4 71 46 74 0 50 22 66 34 48 Spain Coalición Canaria Individualism 24 63 52 50 4 47 60 66 0 40 22 40 50 42 Spain Compromís Collectivist Liberal 24 63 50 44 4 69 46 68 0 46 22 74 32 48 Spain CUP Collectivist Liberal 23 63 44 48 4 81 40 72 0 60 22 78 24 54 Spain EH Bildu Open Collectivism 24 63 46 46 4 77 46 74 0 56 22 40 32 50 Spain ERC Collectivist Liberal 24 63 48 44 4 76 46 78 0 54 22 74 34 50 Spain Junts Open Collectivism 41 63 50 50 4 77 46 76 0 56 22 40 48 50 Spain PNV Collectivist Liberal 41 63 52 50 4 61 48 72 0 52 24 64 52 44 Spain Podemos Collectivist Liberal 24 63 48 48 4 77 42 46 0 32 22 78 26 54 Spain PP Individualism 40 63 60 38 4 71 60 72 0 40 24 40 58 40 Spain PSOE Collectivist Liberal 24 62 44 42 4 73 48 82 0 36 22 78 36 56 Spain Se Acabó La Fiesta Individualism 43 63 52 52 4 73 70 72 0 50 22 36 66 52 Spain Sumar Collectivist Liberal 24 62 46 44 4 75 44 52 0 32 22 78 28 52 Spain UPN Traditional Conservatism 40 63 58 48 4 72 60 76 0 42 22 40 60 40 Spain Vox Individualist Nationalists 42 63 66 62 22 83 72 82 0 52 24 36 72 54 Tanzania Chama Cha Mapinduzi National Collectivism 30 55 76 58 4 82 48 84 0 52 28 48 74 62 Turkey AKP State Collectivism 24 56 68 42 22 85 58 84 0 50 28 34 80 58 Turkey CHP State Collectivism 28 59 58 42 6 72 58 74 0 38 24 36 48 42 Turkey DEM State Collectivism 30 59 55 42 4 77 58 40 0 32 24 40 42 50 Turkey MHP National Collectivism 24 59 70 42 22 85 58 84 0 58 28 32 78 48 Turkmenistan Democratic Party of Turkmenistan National Collectivism 28 53 88 64 6 86 48 90 0 52 28 42 74 68 United Kingdom Alba Party State Collectivism 39 59 68 40 0 67 56 38 0 52 24 44 54 42 United Kingdom Conservative Party National Conservatives 32 65 62 40 0 50 70 74 0 53 26 32 62 42 United Kingdom Democratic Unionist Party Religious Centre-Right 39 62 56 40 48 77 60 82 0 53 28 30 64 42 United Kingdom Green Party of England and Wales Ecological Progressivism 23 57 42 40 0 77 28 42 0 51 22 86 44 87 United Kingdom Labour Party Democratic Socialism 34 59 45 40 0 64 48 66 0 53 24 74 44 45 United Kingdom Liberal Democrats Democratic Socialism 24 60 40 40 0 67 50 66 0 53 22 66 44 42 United Kingdom New Covenant (unlisted) Unassigned 60 60 42 64 88 64 0 85 66 89 24 84 70 14 64 78 United Kingdom Plaid Cymru Democratic Socialism 33 58 48 40 0 41 48 42 0 53 24 64 58 42 United Kingdom Reform UK National Conservatives 64 64 86 62 2 67 78 78 0 84 18 18 76 38 United Kingdom Restore Britain Individualist Nationalists 67 67 48 68 84 62 2 69 96 80 4 84 19 0 76 76 United Kingdom Scottish Greens Collectivist Liberal 40 58 42 40 0 77 52 30 0 52 20 62 38 66 United Kingdom Scottish National Party Modern Progressivism 40 57 42 40 0 71 48 42 0 52 24 70 44 68 United Kingdom Sinn Fein Democratic Socialism 32 55 48 72 0 66 48 26 0 26 26 66 44 42 United Kingdom Workers Party Of Britain Modern Progressivism 31 59 64 72 0 41 50 74 0 53 28 60 48 76 United States Democratic Party Democratic Socialism 36 55 60 30 0 73 32 38 0 26 24 76 33 48 United States Green Party Collectivist Liberal 54 43 50 48 42 77 16 24 0 18 22 88 18 62 United States Libertarian Party Libertarian 82 80 76 84 0 53 86 54 0 14 16 12 45 42 United States Republican Party Religious Centre-Right 68 68 70 44 16 70 64 74 0 36 26 28 61 46 Vietnam Communist Party of Vietnam Democratic Socialism 30 53 82 64 4 86 48 88 0 52 28 52 58 48

Political Galaxies

14 axes, each cut into bands. What a party, a person, or a country has done — or says it will do — is scored on every axis.

Every party, person and ideology is mapped onto a starchart.

Galaxies are unifying concepts. Stars are ideologies. Parties are the planets which orbit the stars. Each galaxy has one condition, and every star in it meets that condition. A branch is descent from there: every star and planet on it still meets the requirements of the origin and of every star before it, and adds more as it gets more specific.

Timeline