Eleutherianism

Note: I won't be doing adding to relations (yet). It's very boring. Look at this page and you should know immediately what I think of you.

Eleutherianism
Out, out, brief candle!
Basic Information
Aliases	Ego-Fisherism
Alignments	Communists  Technologically Skeptic  Egoists
Ideological Influences
Influenced by	Karl Marx Jacques Camatte Mark Fisher Guy Debord Gilles Deleuze Félix Guattari Max Stirner Ego-Communism Anti-Christianity Anti-Egalitarianism Anti-Liberalism Anti-Humanism Moral Nihilism Stirnerite Egoism Russian Post-Punk Advocacy Aromantic Asexualism Social Anxiety LET ZE MARKETS DO ZE FLOW!! Ted Kaczynski
Character Information
Likes	Russian Post-Punk Hating on other ideologies Avaritionists (sometimes)
Dislikes	Blind technophiles Tradition Cocksuckers Cocksucker Cocksuckers Collective Nonsense Oversocialised Idiots Desire Suppression

Eleutherianism is a page where Mari puts the random things he's gonna write someday in the distant future. It is communist (of the epic variety ), and egoist (of the stirnerite variety). ploz do not assume what i am based on my labels marshallah brother

Human Worth and Dependence

First, I must stab the humanistic ideal, which speaks oh so chivalrously of a collective "humanity". In order to achieve true ownness, we must be the ahumane, abandoning the human. Just how I am not just "British", and not just "Worker", I am especially not just "Human", I am unique. This transcendence of humanity and all other external ideals, of morality, and of nationality is a key to our liberation. We must exorcise the phantasms that possess us. Our ownness is our own self-possession, unbound by these aforementioned external ideas/values. It is recognition of ourselves as the only authority of ourselves, rather than the likes of the state, the priest, or dominant ideology. The lack of any fixed identity shall free I. So if we reject the human, what is the worth of a human? Non-existent. There is no inherent worth to a human, for the human is no sacred being, our consciousness is not sacred consciousness. But must we still remain bricks in the wall? I choose not to. I do not want my brick coloured blue to please passers-by and give me a false purpose, a false individualism, I desire my foundations to be my own, my foundations to be I, and I to remain I; where is the I but me and my property? "Gone!" says the Republic "for the common good", "Gone!" says the Vatican "for the Lord", "Gone!" says the vanguard party "for the Proletariat". I reject such answers, I choose something different. I choose to be my own foundations. The immoralist stabs another helpless man in protest of it, whilst the moralist screams in horror. I choose to create a world where my creativity would not be consumed by ghouls, where I would not be bound by grande morality, nor petite immorality.

Capital and Our Discontent

WIP: Capital's autonomy, fictive capital, bunch of Camatte bullshit, yawn

The Basis of Egoist-Communism

WIP: Why communism is egoist, capitalll, uhhh, yeah, shit like that innit.

The Aristocracy Question

WIP: The question of aristocracies, betterness, etc.

When the Immoralist comes marching in

This ideology of mine may come to be mislabeled as "Immoralist", but I would like to state that morality and immorality are two cheeks of the same societal arse. As with my rejection of both traditionalism (the worship of sacred traditions) and progressivism (the worship of sacred progress), for "Moralism or Immortalism" ,I take a different path. Immoralism is inverse Moralism and in its inversion, it recognises a good and a bad, sure they are swapped from original humanism, but they still continue to be a moral system, defined externally rather than from yourself. Immoralism is not defiance of moral systems, and the liberation from such constraints, from sacred morality, but rather a handcuff on your left foot, rather than the right, C's martyrdom for B, rather than for the more common A. C should live under C's own compass, C's own value, rather than under Moralism, both default and inverse.

The "Deserving Poor" and The Desiring I

The extraction of surplus value from the proletariat, capitalist forms of hierarchy, etc. and et cetera. Are they bad? Not inherently. Place them upon me however and aren't they just miserable and intolerable? The capitalist mode of production, as long as it exists, shall do just that. It shall socialise me, extract my labour, and keep my consciousness false until I lay dead, no wonder equally disgusting, equally ascetic Calvinism allowed for its introduction. The deserving poor, what do they deserve? Nothing. Neither do I, I deserve nothing but rather only desire, I desire the realisation of the creative nothing, I desire to be I in its most negating form. I desire the negation of all external, the utmost freedom of creative thought, for myself. If the communism which this requires ends capitalism, so be it. If it liberates what humanists would call humanity, so be it. I am only concerned with my own desire, any consequence is excusable. I do not care for the idea of the deserving poor, who are neither deserving of anything nor undeserving of anything. My communism is me myself, it is the expression of my own desire for freedom.

Reading Log

Note: This is books read since the creation of this reading log.

Reading

• The Myth of Sisyphus

> Absurd Walls

• Towards the Creative Nothing

Authors I Want to Read

• Curtis Yarvin
• Friedrich Nietzsche
• Jacques Camatte
• Group of International Communists
• Amaedo Bordiga
• Louis Althusser
• Benjamin Tucker

File:Comment.gif Comments

• - rahhhhh
• - Do you consider yourself an anarchist?
  • - Not at all.
    • - what don't you like about anarchism?
      • - I'm not convinced that the immediate abolition of the state would lead to communism.
• - Additionally, may I add an alias?
  • - Yeah go ahead.
• - unfathomably based
  • - Merci mon ami.