Source Documents/Naar de Nieuwe Republiek Indonesia-ENG

Naar de Nieuwe Republiek Indonesia

Original language: English
Original publication: 10 January 2024‎
Written by: Nurul Iskandar (Nurisk5)
Translated by: N/A
License of this version: Unknown, assumed CC0 or CC-BY
Other language versions: N/A
Link to PDF: N/A
Other links: N/A

For the Indonesian version, see Source Documents/Naar de Nieuwe Republiek Indonesia-IND

Difference between Me and Dugin

Dugin is an Idealist, I am a Materialist, I lean more towards Marx, Zizek, and Deleuze whilst Dugin leans more towards Guenon, Evola, and de Benoist.

Here I am going to take upon a Materialist conception of the Fourth Political Theory as opposed to Dugin’s more Idealist conceptioj of it as I take upon a more Materialist Metaphysics that more focuses on the external experience of being Human than the Internal experience of being Human. Dugin and I are both Heideggerians and generally would be placed by normies in the “NazBol” category for our Nationalist and Socialist (not Nazi) beliefs.

My views are more aligned with Cultural Futurism, Cultural Rhizomatics, and Deconstructive Conservatism whilst Dugin’s more aligned with Cultural Traditionalism, Perennialism, and Constructive Conservatism.

My Metaphysics being Materialist means that I must use Materialist means to explain Heidegger (such as using Psychoanalysis) to create a worldview that does not rely on Idealist conceptions such as the Human “Essence” and instead focuses on the Individual as a Subject that is self-oppressed due to the emergence of Civilisation in the first place.

Technically this would put me in the category of a “Post-Civilisationist” as I want the disintegration and deconstruction of our current understanding of Civilisation and a deterritorialisation of cultural expression.

Andrew Culp’s “Dark Deleuze” is an accurate comparison here, Dugin’s Light whilst I am Dark. Whilst we both are Heideggerians, Nationalists (although Dugin is more accurately described as “Civilisationist”) and share similar theoretical insights and criticisms of Capitalism, our conclusions diverge due to both of our differences in terms of where we end up in terms of our Metaphysics.

If anyone were to accuse me or being a “National Bolshevik” they are free to do so, I simply do not care but it still is an inaccurate depiction of me.

With all of this said, let us begin, shall we?

Political Phenomenology

Anti-Modernism

Modernity is dead. Modernity remains dead. And we have killed it. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not carve our own paths simply to appear worthy of it?

Here, I have modified Nietzsche’s iconic “God is Dead” quote. The point that I am illustrating is that in the Postmodern age, Modernity as we know it has ceased. What we build on top of that is what we call “Postmodernity”; Dugin is concerned about the course of Modernity out of the fact that the future is working on towards the Killing of the past.

The Past is being killed for the sake of the future, the Past we discriminate against as being “superstitious” and “primitive” therefore they are bad. We must develop towards a Rational Society, a Society that is Progressive, a Society so developed that we forget about the Past. Hell, Let’s alter and change the past!

In the age of the Postmodern, we have the ability to alter the Past, to impose stereotypes on the past. What is real? What is unreal?

Baudrillard has talked of this in Simulacra and Simulation where the past has been filtered through an altered lens, Edward Said has called this “Orientalism” but the easiest way to summarise is to give an example.

The Japanese are the prime example of this. Orientalism at it’s finest, the Land of the Rising Sun has had a recent culture of altering their culture and how they view the past in their media to fit how the west sees them. They went from a Nation with a strict National code (Bushido) that which protects their warrior culture to a country of Media hegemony where they bastardise their own past and culture to include aspects that exist only in our modern times.

They then adopt this culture truly as their own as opposed to taking it with at least a grain of salt. This new mode of Expression, whilst Tradition alone has no real meaning, the Japanese people still have betrayed their own past by doing it dirty by making a mockery of it and adopting that mockery as a representation of their own culture. This is what Baudrillard calls “the Hyperreal” where the Real ceases to be Isolated from the Unreal, the Simulated and especially the Simulacra which is a Simulation of Simulations that have lost their original tracing.

Dasein

Dasein refers to being, specifically, “being-there”, by “being-there” Heidegger refers to the conscious experience of being “in this world”.

Dasein is not uniquely Human, it can also be non-human so thus Ontologically speaking, every object must have Equal Phenomenological Value. But what determines a thing to have “being”? Being alive is one thing, but what constitutes being “alive”? We often refer to Animals, Bacterium, Plants, Humans, etc as being “alive” by the biological “definition” of being alive (being able to engage in metabolic processes, reacting to stimuli, etc).

The Subjectivity of Dasein is Universal, existence is not self-existent but relational in that every instance of change within a system there will always be an impact upon the greater system of Dasein. Dasein is not Transcendental where it is “above” anything and everything else but rather it is apart of everything. Dasein is merely Subjectivity from a “particular” subject, an Individual Subject taken out of the world for examination. The greater system (the “They” or “Das Man”) is where Dasein is thrown “in the World” as apart of a greater whole.

The Kantians and the Humanists invented Humans, they invented our modern conception of Humans as something that is transcendentally above everything as an “actor” above everything and that everything in history that happens can be attributed to Humans. This is false and many non-human things have let to major events such as Opium or Oil; Humans are really just as much apart of everything else than being separate from everything else in this wider system.

The Real tragedy happened long before the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt. Civilisation emerged and created the system that we now know of as “Politics”. Politics is about the control of Subjects or “Biopower” as per Foucault and birthed the separation between Man and Nature by creating Civilisation. Civilisation is a living thing that is Alienated from the rest of the world. It is alienated in the sense that the World is subjected by Civilisation as it becomes a mere “resource” than it is merely “existing” freely. It becomes a thing that is used by Civilisation to attain it’s goals. This says a lot about the relationship of us as Individuals as Subjects and our Masters; we as Humans are first set apart from Nature before being subjugated by ourselves as we are divided between the Subject and the Other (God, King, People, etc.), now this other also begins to merge with the Subject as the Subject now become self-repressing and is even more so when we consider the Subject as becoming his own Object as he Objectifies himself in this Individualist Society where we forge identities for ourselves and our own desires.

We’ll go back to this in other parts of this work but this is the general summary of “Dasein” that we will be using throughout this work.

Living Civilisations

Being, noted that being implies a thing to be conscious, alive of sorts.

What is alive? We point at biological things as alive, why? Maybe because they are biological? What’s the distinction between one thing and another? Maybe we can point to their different characteristics but what can we reduce of them to be counted as distinct? A Human is different from a Monkey, a White Man is different from a Black Man, but even amongst White Men there are distinctions in many ways such as facial structures, eye color, hair color, hair length, height, and so forth. Why are certain things alive or conscious? Why is Biology distinct from “Non-Biology”? Maybe because there are specific chemical reactions, but why then is the Sun not Biological? This i ask to the Humanists who claim that Humans are special, maybe that we have a “God Given right” that makes us separate from all the others, based on what though? Who counts as apart of this group? What specific features? And why?

Returning to the original question, what then defines life? Perhaps the ability to produce/process things to create other things or to power itself, ah but this would include not just biological but technological things as well….. why is this a bad thing? Life is not the same as consciousness, for a thing to be conscious it must be capable of making decisions, regardless if it is rational or otherwise (one could argue that rationality may not even exist!).

This would mean that even Human Societies are alive, Civilisations, settlements, so forth are all alive; beginning at the smallest as a village expanding to a larger network as a Country or an Empire that which is made up of many of these communities organised in different manners with different social systems, hierarchies, etc. safe to say that Nations are alive as they engage in metabolic processes utilising the earth and using it to power it’s members so that it can live as well.

Every Mind is taught to be organised, Id, Ego, and Super-Ego and we are told to advance the Ego towards the Super-Ego whether imposed or otherwise. Every Civilization is a Conjoined twin with two heads representing the Political (State) and the Economy (Capital), these twins must work together to get somewhere both of whom hold two swords that are of Tellurocracy and Thalassocracy. Tellurocracy is held by the State and is concerned with affairs of the Land, Nationalism, Irredentism, and so forth whilst Thallasocracy is held by Capital and is concerned with maritime affairs such as trade. Examples of the former include Russia, the Roman Empire, and Arabia whilst the latter would include the British Empire, the United States, and France all of whom seek to exercise their "will to power" onto other nations. If both can be done at the same time (like European Colonial Empires) then it would a benefit of both heads. This Body, the Political Economy Socially Divides it's cells into different organs from the digestive system which produces commodities for the whole system, the brain which guides the whole thing, the excretory system which manages waste, the circulatory system that manages the circulation of commodities, etc. all of whom are doing these specific tasks to keep the whole Nation alive.

Every Society, Every Civilisation is Alive and has their own interests, towards exerting their will to do what they wish. Every nation have their own ways because each specific condition made them evolve to be that way, Nations fight each-other, get infected by rebellions that change their minds, etc. all Civilisations wish to survive, each of them has their own unique ways of doing so.

To impose a particular standard to be the ultimate is stupid and is a symptom of Modernism where you imply that a certain way (a way of the past) is simply stupid and irrational and thus must be replaced. Whilst there are some to be replaced it is important to note that there is a bias towards a particular civilisational standard which is why I oppose Western Humanism and Modernism of the Enlightenment, their Values are simply foreign for my Country and do not express the same Dasein as my Country and implies my Nation is wrong in some arbitrary way whilst in reality what is wrong is that we are not strong enough to defend itself.

This is why i oppose the New World Order, Globalism, and Unipolarity as it disregards the uniqueness of each Nation and serves to impose a particular standard upon these Nations seeing them as “Inferior”.

We are not Inferior and we shall combat this Globalist menace with the mightiest of our wills.

Here we seek a decapitation of the Civilisational Heads of Capital and State and to become an Acephalous Civilisation operating through a Cybernetic Autocephalous system and thus why My Nationalism revolves around a kind of Libertarian Socialism.

The Monotonic process that we must lead ourselves toward a particular direction, Profit or Ideology does not truly address the needs of the People and instead it oppresses the Nation’s own cells that make it up making it susceptible to Rebellion and secession by Separatist Groups who seek their own Will separate from the rest. Couple this with the fact that we are at the age of Technology where Humans are no longer forced to work in such horrible conditions, whilst this is embraced in the west it is a disaster for the south and east where my country is as the mean purpose of the Economy is to fulfill Profit. I wish that my Nation is free from this and thus must seek towards decapitating this head so that it can withstand whatever new developments exist without rendering members vestigial and to die thus we must seek a society based on the principles of “each according to their needs”.

The State is not safe from this either, we shall no longer be oppressed by an Ideology anymore, and Ideology without meaning, Ideologies that suppresses the freedom of thought for the Nation, one that inevitably halts the development of Culture within the Nation. Does not have to be degenerate but simply unrestricted without having to meet particular set of Societal expectations, to question not just Tradition but also of Progress and to follow a path of Moderation.

The Monotonic Process

Is Progress necessary? Is the Eschatological necessity of the Second Coming of Christ going to happen? Must we indulge ourselves in having to build up towards Communism?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Noooooooooooo.

The obligation towards progress is a myth, a racist myth in fact. The fact that we view the past as inherently “primitive” and therefore “bad” is an Enlightenment Myth. The Enlightenment myth, the Whig Historiography where we must develop on towards a state of “Development” is a Neurotic myth superimposed onto the Modern man inherited from Judeo-Christian Eschatology.

The Monotonic Process as Dugin calls it is a dangerous path to think as the worship of progress leads towards the Self-Destruction and Self-Repression of oneself. The Neurotic desire toward “Freedom”, “Class Emancipation”, “The State”, “God” leads one toward a path that Kills their sense of Dasein into a sense of Unbeing or Death-Being. An Inauthentic existence engulfed by the living of being by being dead creates a contradiction, a Dialectic, a Negative alongside the Positive that constructs the whole.

Being needs Un-being to exist, Un-being needs being to exist and thus a Monotonic Process, like one of the Marxist Dialectic results in the Negative or “Antithesis” to take over the Positive and thus kills the Dasein. The Monotonic Process necessitates the existence of the necessity of resolution of Contradictions just as the Marxist Historical Materialism predicts.

Instead of trying to resolve contradictions, how about we create more contradictions? Let a thousand contradictions arose! The point of the Fourth Political Theory is against these narratives overtaking another imposing their Ideological will onto another.

In Zizekian terms, Ideology is the objet a of sociology. It is created by the Imaginary as a Freudian Super-Ego created by the Symbolic Order and the Big “Other” after it sees the Real. The Observation of the Real, in whatever state it is must be organised and stratified by the command of the Other and this creates a Neurosis. A Halt of the expressive capabilties and the endless possibilities of presents as the future is reduced to only one and an imposed one.

Speaking of,

Time as a Non-linear Warzone

The Phenomenological view of time that Dugin (as well as Heidegger and Husserl) think of is nothing that exists outside of us. In order for time to have an effect, being must exist to experience it. Time for Dugin is relative and Time itself is a location, some place with different people, different things, different features, etc.

The many cliques of Modernity; Fascism, Marxism, Liberalism, and Fundamentalism are all at war with each-other but have yet to see their greatest enemy yet: Anarchy. The very fact that these forces even compete for the course of the future is what caused their downfall, Fascism was killed when it was still a child, Communism passed of old age, Nationalism was murdered, whilst Liberalism is still at war with Fundamentalism.

The Rise of Ideology is birthed out of the Neurotic aspirations birthed from the Enlightenment when it came to replace the Reactionary institutions of Feudalism. When the Masses finally get to have a say on how they want to be ruled over, the Masochistic desire for self-repression creates a cult towards both progression and regression toward the future and past.

The Past is Primitive, the Future is Advanced, the Present is neutral. The Future is Anarchic whilst the Past is Totalitarian. The Present tries to hold a balance and picks and chooses elements of the Future and removes bits and pieces of the Past as it sees fit. The Past is the Ego of the Time-Psyche whilst the Past is the Super-Ego whilst the Future is the Id — Fundamentalists, Traditionalists, and Primitivists are all Totalitarian and Neurotic in their nature as they seek to suppress change and development of the Values that they seek so dearly whilst the Future is Chaotic, Anarchic, and full of Unknowns that have not been discovered and it is the Job of the Present to choose the future that it seeks to follow.

The Battle for the “Now” or “Modernity” is the struggle of both the Psychotic Future and the Neurotic Past whilst the Schizotic Postmodernity awaits in the background.

The Deterritorialisation of “Time” then is a job that we as Postmodernists must take seriously to allow for new “present”s to emerge. Baudrillard’s “Hyperreal” allows the Deterritorialisation between the Real and the Unreal whilst the Duginist conception of time allows the Deterritorialisation between the separate “realms” of Past and Future.

The Transformation of time to a Rhizomatic pathway and the abandonment of narratives of the “necessity of development” will allow us toward a new path, a path that combines the elements of the Past and of the Future.

Anti-Individualism

The Individual does not exist. The "I" is not without the "We". Only through the "We" could the "I" exist, the "Other" is what gives rise to the Subject, the Subject is in conjunction with the Other in order to exist which is his means to existence. The Subject does not exist "in-himself" as a Transcendental experience as was put by Kant.

A Subject is, with others, Dialectical in the sense that there needs to be a minimal of two things within a system that must exist in conjunction else he could not exist.

Now, who is this "Me" that you like to talk about dear Individualist? Who gave you the idea that you were your own thing Tabula Rasa? What exactly makes you you? Can you escape all influences and be a thing-in-yourself Ibn Sina style? The moment you utter a sentence, you are speaking by copying many tongues, your existence is wholly dependent on others and to even begin speaking in the first place only furthers my point. You cannot think without others making you think, you are not some transcendental mind that can have thought that which comes from a primordial universe of perfect forms. Instead, you are one among many, that is what makes you you.

Your thoughts, agendas, will, and so forth is always influenced by your surroundings from you parents to your friends to the media and to your country. You cannot think on your own, it is impossible for you to form a thought that did not come from the thoughts of others. The Soviet Union took less years to Industrialise than the west since the USSR's formation was after the Industrial Revolution and hence the Technology was already there. One could not jump from having sticks to a rocket without intermediate steps that lead up to that invention.

You cannot be aploitical, you can "avoid" politics but not escape it, you always will be a political subject, you are not the main character, whilst it is true that the whole world are all means to your own ends towards self-satisfaction, ultimately what you crave is externally influenced based on your experience. Your Identity, Gender, Name, Party, Preferences, and so forth; who gave you those? Who else but Society? If one were truly be "against society" then one must abandon these things altogether ala Nechayev. Forgo yourself! Deny yourself! Let yourself become a Monk living in your nihilistic revolutionary monasteries! All hail the Negative!

See how silly this sounds my Individualist friend? You are always in a dialectic with society, always. Society is what gave you your Identity that you so identify yourself with had you been Cisgender, Transgender, a Homosexual, Heterosexual, a Communist, a Fascist, a Liberal, and so forth! To be Selfish is to be Unselfish as you bestow a gift upon the World that is the gift of Identity, even if just tools for your own gain. Remind me again how you can call yourself a "Me" if it were not Society? How you are yourself is because of society, you take identities that society identifies you and you create your own uniqueness. This is not Individualism, this is Individuation, it is not Ontologically centered around the Individual, but on Society.

You cannot live without others, but others do not need you.

Gender

Now, Gender is important to discuss as it is related to the experience of "being" an Individual.

We discussed previously that Individualism is not a valid Ontology as the one does not create the world but the world creates the one. We categorise things into neat boxes, hence why to state that Gender is "not a social construct" is fallacious at best. Nothing is inherent "in of itself" with an identity, the sky is not blue, the fire is not hot, air is not transparent, and so forth. These are Genders that we assign onto objects to characterize them and to give rise to their unique social function. This is how Gender is and always has been.

One is simply not a "Woman" simply because one says so, one is a woman because one is assigned the role of a woman. Cultures around the world have had this system from Indonesia, to India, to Latin America, and so forth. Had the Trans Women of today been transported to the past they would just be seen as part of a third gender or just a mutilated Femboy. It is only when western society became more Individualist that how we used to assign Gender is flipped on it's head and now the Individual is the one who assigns their own Gender.

We demonise those who treat people as Objects than Subjects that we lynch and cancel those who dare themselves to do so. Anyone who dares to call a Woman a mere "Sexual Object" or a "Dishwasher" or a "Servant of the Husband" is automatically called for their beheading but much of human history have not been like what we have. We cover it under a thinly disguised veil of "Progress" whilst in reality that's just a selfish act of assigning the past as culturally "primitive" which is racist. Time as we have discussed is not just a line we walk on, but an active warzone between the past and future over the present. Can we really blame old cultures for calling women objects? Hell! Being an Object isn't even a bad thing! It's just that we are obsessed over equality and giving the title of "Master" to all humans that we do not have a "Slave" that we use for our own good. This renders us completely unable to express ourselves in ways that are not obscene that we value obscenity over all else, that Sexuality has become normalised yet to treat women as nothing but Sexual Objects is forbidden.

Whilst I do not like seeing myself as a tool for the enjoyment of others, this does not stop me from viewing others as my tools, this would then allow me and others complete freedom as we see each-other not as equal masters but as masters over slaves in our own subjective experience. I treat my slave with care and compassion whilst he treats me with kindness and compassion as well as I am his slave just as he is my slave. I am the Master of my world, you are the Master of your world, the world is our playground, we treat each-other as we like. If one does harm to you feel free to harm them back (directly or indirectly) or to give compassion.

Society naturally sorts itself out with Societies that are more organised and less chaotic surviving much longer than those in constant conflict hence why I am not an Anarchist. I want a society with Order and to do that I must treat my slaves with love and care as a Master of my own world just as they are the Master of their own world but treats me with forgiveness and kindness.

Indeed, Gender is related to one’s role in Society and whilst it is not a necessity that we return to a time where Gender is Imposed, it should be noted that it is a relatively new phenomena as society breaks down it’s logic by creating new forms of expressions of gender and gender identities. I am not here to propose to create more genders, but to dissolve gender as a social phenomena by rendering gender as something that whilst it may be verbally imposed, it (it’s roles, expressions, and identities) should not be physically imposed onto another person. One should live one’s life freely without having to worry about choosing a Gender Identity or “pass” a certain Gender. What is left then are vague categories of “feminine” and “masculine” that is more akin to mood or personality than it is to identity just as anger and sadness or quirky and serious. In other words, “Agenderfluid” (Agender, meaning “without gender” and “Genderfluid” meaning one’s gender identity/expression is not rigid and is subject to change over time.

Language also reflects one’s expression of Gender such as being a “policeman” or “businesswoman” and so forth, pronouns like “he/him” or “she/her”, we need not create new terms but to be ambivalent to these terms being applied onto us. To be free is to not be confined to a particular set of labels, whilst one could have preferences it is important to note that again, the notion of “passing” and even “affirmation” should be rejected entirely and instead one should live themselves how they wish and use whatever language suits their purposes and preferences than to make a whole fuss about it.

Whilst for Physicalities, indeed, surgery is famously a heated subject in Transgenderism as there are many camps for this subject. Some believe that everyone including kids should get gender affirming surgery whilst others are more conservative and say that only adults may get it whilst others are entirely against it. I believe that this will be left up in the air for the most part however it should be noted that I am for the complete freedom of expression which includes morphological freedom and as for if children get this right is completely up in the air for society (although I do lean towards pro-puberty blockers and hormone therapy and I am tucute over transmedicalism).

Noted that the Myth of Child Grooming among Transgender folks on Children is a bloated lie most often of the time as is usual for Media to exaggerate the proportions of actions done by a group due to a few people having done so. I am not denying that these events have occurred, but I neither affirm they are widespread. Even then, if one is free and happy to be who they are, what of it? If you are suspicious of these folk then might I suggest to simply not interact with them but I would know that this is easier said than done as Ideology runs rampant in the brains of Humans.

Speaking of Ideology, on the topic of whether Transgenderism is “supported by science” is laughable at best. All categories as we have discussed previously are Social Constructs, we Gender everything! From what is a Human, to a Woman, to a Bird, and to a Car. One cannot reduce these identities to core elements that make them so but they are instead abstract categories or linguistic “references” used to help us describe and give ease to explaining what things are and what we can do with them. Noted that whether it truly is a Demonic Jewish Globohomo WEF funded Freemason Illuminati aligned Reptilian Groomers who fund studies using cherrypicked information, this is not grounds to care how someone expresses themselves and as i have iterated earlier, one should not care about being gendered, rather, to be free. (Also this supposes that there can be Science without an Agenda which is just straight up impossible lol)

Critique of Freedom

"You all want freedom, you want freedom. So why do you haggle over more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. Do you despair of the possibility of getting the whole of freedom, freedom from all, indeed do you take it for madness to even wish for it? —Well then, give up chasing after phantoms, and spend your efforts on something better than—the unattainable." -Max Stirner, The Unique and It's Property

The Problem I see with those who decry "Authoritarianism!" and yell for "Rights!" and "Freedom!" is that they often have their limits with what should people do. One may say to them "We should be free to have sex with children!" and they would berate you by saying that you are a child abuser and a paedophile — the truth is that "Freedom" cannot be partial, but whole yet these people ask for only "some" freedom and not it's whole.

What is Freedom?

Freedom is loosely defined, it is a term that describes itself yet is hard to pinpoint; Freedom can generally be interpreted as one's autonomy to do whatever one could do. Already Freedom is hard to define, many posit that there is a kind of "Positive" and "Negative" Freedom distinction between Freedom for and Freedom from respectively — people who posit this distinction know that certain Freedoms are Bad whilst other kinds of Freedom are good.

But what determines a kind of Freedom to be bad or good? Some appeal to "Natural Law", others appeal to Religion, some appeal to Empathy, whilst others appeal to other more abstract Deontological things such as "Human Rights" or the "Non-Aggression Principle".

But based on what responsibility does one have to follow these commandments? Punishment? What if someone has nothing to lose? Why should they care? One could say that indeed we are herd animals, but why should we have to stick together? What if i am capable on my own? What if i am an expert in survival and am able to live without others? What obligation do i have to follow the herd? Why is the herd right? This kind of Majoritarianism leads to an inabilty to think and thus causes a sense of "Unfreedom" due to fears of being outed by the larger group.

Our good friend Stirner here has a better alternative, "Ownness" which he describes as such:

"One can get rid of a lot, but one doesn’t get rid of everything; one becomes free from much, but not from all. One may be free inwardly despite a condition of slavery, though, once again, it is only from a whole lot of things, not from everything; but as a slave one does not get free from the whip, the imperious temper, etc., of the master. “Freedom lives only in the realm of dreams!” On the other hand, ownness is my whole essence and existence, it is myself. I am free from what I am rid of, owner of what I have in my power, what I control." -Max Stirner, The Unique and It's Property

Max here goes on to explain how Ownness is when one becomes their own Master, where one Liberates themselves by taking up their own arms as opposed to begging for the Mercy of another entity or State. "Ownness' is Insurrectionary — one does what one wants and does not care if one is not given those rights to begin with.

Speaking of Rights....

We plea for Rights, we plea to be given the ability to do something, why can't you just exercise it already? Why can't you exercise what you wish already? Why wait for the State or your Master's approval?

What defines Rights? Rights are Freedoms, Freedoms to do something, Freedoms to do this, to do that, but as we established earlier, if one has only the right to do some things then are you really free? What amount of Freedom constitutes "Freedom"? How does one calculate and quantify Freedom? Political Freedom? Why is Political Freedom important? What about freedom from politics? From whom do we have rights? Why must we have rights?

Such questions cannot be answered precisely — but why must it be when it means nothing? Give up! Rights absolutely do not exist and neither can you Scientifically prove them. Natural Laws do not exist, one can appeal to God but that would be admitting that they cannot think any further.

Is Freedom even Good?

This Question delves into whether the specifics of "Good" or "Bad", Obviously one cannot concretely define "Bad" and "Good" without referring to the words themselves which is why we should separate the Linguistic from the Conceptual of "Good" and "Bad".

"Good" and "Bad" are both defined by the Subject, there's no concrete "Good" or "Bad" as it is relative, one could say that the path of Chaos and Destruction is Good whilst the path of Order and Stability is Bad. One could say that the path towards God is Good and the path towards the Devil is bad, the Conception of whether a thing is "Good" or "Bad" is relative and the consequences being in their favour is up to the Subject in question. The Linguistic terms of "Good" and "Bad" cannot be properly defined without appealing to subjectivity/themselves.

The Question of whether we should have the Right to choose at all is abstract as there's really nothing preventing us from making choices, the Legalist systems that we have say that we do not, but stops us from making those decisions? For sure, consequences exist but even if we do, what of it then? Should we be prevented from attaining such "Freedom" or should we concern ourselves with preventing such "Freedom"?

The Ideology of Freedom, we strive towards Freedom, because Freedom is "Good" according to the Ideologists who cry for it's existence. The Ideologists who cry for the existence of Freedom are themselves enslaved to their own fantasies of this Utopia of Freedom, they are Neuroticised by the Desire to be free which is to have choice, but when one makes a choice their ability to choose is reduced to what they have currently.

The fact of the matter is isn't that there isn't "enough" choices, but that the choice is even made to begin with and that is what is important.

So to strive for "Freedom" should not be our goal here, but to choose the path of what is "Right".

Byung-Chul Han in his work "The Burnout Society" talks about how we Humans are addicted towards achieving a "Best Self", this Freudian "Super-Ego", this Desire that exists outside of us yet is not capturable; It is Non-Existent and purely in our minds and yet we still try to capture it. When Lacan talks about the Imaginary and the Symbolic Other, this is what he was talking about, the Imaginary is not "Real" and the Symbolic "Other" does not exist and is a figment of our Imagination in the mirror stage when we developed a sense of self, an image of who we are as a person which leads us to be guided towards achieving a "Best Self".

The problem isn't exactly with the fact that we cannot express our fullest the way we want to, but that we even want to in the first place. The Liberation of the Flow of desire is not merely the Liberation towards the Freedom to practically do whatever but the Liberation from Neuroses that emerge from desire and Psychoses as well.

So again i tell you, whether it is the Ideological desire towards "Freedom" or the Neurotic desire toward Self-Improvement to a "Best self", Freedom is not exactly that great at all! The Fact that we chase towards this leads us susceptible to control via those who want to use this neurosis towards their own gain by the Capitalists or Populist Politicians and Dictators.

As the Old saying goes:

"Freedom is Slavery" -George Orwell, 1984

Killing False Religions

Capitalism

Capitalism, it is, as a System a System of transformations that utilise the creative and productive utility of desiring-machines coupled from heterogenetic forms of production and into a Machine that dissolves uniqueness into order within the greater System.

Capital as an entity, deterritorialises existing social relationships and births new ones based around the Reproduction of itself. This has always been the goal of the Darwinistic Struggle, to reproduce, the Energy that it uses to do this is embedded within the commodity-form. The commodity-form is the form in which this productive energy stores itself aka as Economic Value which fuels production. Commodity is the Nugget in which this Energy is stored whilst Money is the rawest form of this Nugget.

The Market is a region in the Political Economy in which the exchange/cooking of the Money-form into a Commodity within another form in which the Worker can consume to replenish his productive energy. He eats the Value to generate Value and excretes the byproduct, the decommodified waste product, his shit.

This Energy, needs to be captured in order to be regulated, in order for Capital, a Subject, to propel itself it must regulate and bring order to the chaoticity of the free-flowing Energy in the World hence the amalgamation of this Energy into Nuggets that can be Regulated that we dub "Money". Value in order to be regulated needs to be standardised into one kind of value.

Guattari asks;

"How does this machinic heterogenesis, which differentiates each colour of being - which makes, for example, from the plane of consistency of a philosophical concept a world quite different from the plane of reference of the scientific function or the plane of aesthetic composition - end up being reduced to the capitalistic homogenesis of generalised equivalence, which leads to all values being valued by the same thing, all appropriative territories being related to the same economic instrument of power, and all existential riches succumbing to clutches of exchange value?" -Chaosmosis, Machinic Heterogenesis

To which Marx answers;

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal." -Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part I

Indeed, Capitalism is an Egalitarian System that equalises all things into a single equal measurement of value, the Subjectivity of the Unique here is negated, what is an Individual has been categorised, into an identity, a demographic. Quoting Land:

"Capital is machinc (non-instrumental) globalization-miniaturization scaling dilation: an automatizing nihilist vortex, neutralizing all values through commensuration to digitized commerce, and driving a migration from despotic command to cyber-sensitive control: from status and meaning to money and information." -Fanged Noumena, Meltdown

Capitalism is a machine that produces itself, it is Autopoietic and thus assimilates all Individuated Machines into it's own body to create more of itself as a means of propulsion, Capitalism as a competition of machinic circuitries that assimilate it's dead opponents to build up more of itself exerting more control over more territories, deterritorialising Oligopoly, Monopoly.

Capitalism transforms Subjectivity and the Unique into an Identity and the Subject that which accumulates Identities within the Identity-Economy and the Accumulation of Identity as Identity becomes a new manifestation of Capital within the Economy of Signs that gravitationally attracts Subjects into a Solar System revolving around the Worship of Sol, also known by it's commoner name, the "Trend".

Individuals have become reduced from being truly unique to becoming sameness, Dasein to Das Man. From I/Me to They/Them. I am among Them yet I imagine myself as Unique, I am Inauthentically Unique as my Uniqueness is really just Sameness coping to not appear as part of the Sameness of another kind.

The Question my dear Shakespeare is not "To Be or Not To Be" but "To Do or Not To Do". The former ties the Subject into the Gravitational pull of the Sign forming the Solar System of the Trend whilst the Latter is true Rogueness as it does not care if it becomes apart of a Solar System accidentally, but can Leave by it's own will.

A Sign is a symbol that gives a Commodity it’s meaning when it is used, it is different from Use-Value as established by Marx as Use-Value refers to a form of Value that emerges by it’s use by a Consumer. Sign value is different in that it refers to the Social Status of the Commodity, what it means to have it and the psychological effects it has.

Psychologically speaking, a Sign gives rise to the imagined and perceived Idea of Status to which one imagines themselves doing which triggers their emotional reception which makes them inclined towards the purchase of the Commodity. From the Crowns, Robes, and Scepters of Monarchs, to the Blades and Armor of the Warriors, to the Dress of the Priests, all of these contain Signs or Symbols that which gives rise to the status of someone in Society. These Symbolics are given meaning by virtue of what they signify which we associate with a thing as a reference for each Subject.

What this means under Capitalism is that, in Modern Consumer Capitalism is that production ceases to be the production of needs but the production of signs as it gives us status not for what we achieved but in who we think or want to be. Consumer Society has degenerated what it “means” to be a person from someone imposing an identity onto someone for who or what they have achieved and instead have transformed into something that which we simply buy or purchase identity. We purchase Identity through the purchasing of Commodities as we become less and less of a being “among them”

(Das man) but instead become a Sein für Spaß or Existence for Enjoyment which under Capitalism emerges out of Commodity Fetishism as one immerses themselves in a Hyperreal experience of existence that is inauthentic and instead becomes a Sein that is an Object or a Sein of Signs.

This “Sein of Signs” is what is concerning, we immerse ourselves in a world of Signs, of Fashion, of Glamour, to be who we want to be and that is the problem. Back then, we do as we wish, we lack any need for Identity and generally we hold basic Identities such as Names but most of our Identity comes from the “Other” imposing who they think we are onto us which gives rise to our Identity. One is not simply a Hero, a King, a Peasant, or a Lord but is one because of their imposed identity as a reference point for said object of whom is us. Our Individualist Culture has switched that and have turned us into a state of being that which we have divided ourselves into the Subject-Object and the Other. The Subject-Object is in a sense, a Subject in the sense that we are the actor and we are an Object as we are the thing being acted upon and the Other is, in a sense, the Bourgeoisie of the Mind that which Commands the Working Subject to work on themselves to pursuit a profit of Identity.

Identity is what we pursuit, we pursuit the production of Identities as we purchase commodities not of their necessity but of their apparent Signs that symbolise what they mean to us. What it means to have an Aesthetic is to have an Identity by the accumulation of signs that which we use to adorn ourselves with. Coquette, Barbiecore, Goblincore, Christian, Vintage, Americana, and so forth, all of these aesthetics are signs that reflect the type of person or Identity that we are. “I am this”, “I am that”, “I am so this”, “It’s giving that”, all of these Identities we claim and use to describe our selves and those that are close to us and we accumulate identities as we work on ourselves more into a “finished product”.

We have Commodified ourselves, we are our own Bourgeoisie, we are our own Pimps and Sex Workers in this digital age of sign prostitution where we seek out affirmation of identities as profit. We have lost ourselves and immersed ourselves into the abyss of labels and we seek validation from said labels by trying to fit in. This is the fruit of modern day consumerism and the identity market that which transforms us into self-exploiting psychological bourgeois-proletarians and with the rise of the content creator economy, this eventually intensifies in the form of the digital petit bourgeoisie and their own self-commodisation.

Hyperreality

The Postmodern world is where there is a Multiplicity, a Multipolarity of Modernities happening at once. We discussed in brief previously about Hyperreality, but we never got to talk about it’s implications onto reality, let alone what it means when a Civilisation copies the simulacra than simulations copying Civilisation.

Civilisation itself is a word that has been defined in many ways, often we think of it in terms of Civilised versus Primitive or “Uncivilized” to which as we established earlier is a false modernist dichotomy.

Dugin established that there is no distinction between “civilised” and “uncivilised” and to do such would be a racist remark as indeed as he says earlier, the idea that the past is “irrational” or “barbaric” would be to impose a standard of “purity” of sorts onto the past to claim the future is inherently morally superior.

The truth is that they aren’t, they are unique in their own ways and we should respect this.

Dugin talks that the “Ethnos” is the simplest form of society — The Ethnos has their own unique Culture, Language, History, and so on and is what defines them; Ethnicity isn’t something necessarily “Biological” although it’s descent certainly is Biological and we do see similarities amongst members if Ethnic Groups.

Now this Ethnos are prt of wider Civilisations from China, to India, to Europe and to Arabia each with their own customs, hierarchies, and interact and view their neighbors in their own ways. The Development and Globalisation of the World brought these cultures to think similarly (whether imposed or otherwise) which brought cultures come together to create newer more unified cultures and with the emergence of the Internet thus emerges “Internet Culture”.

Internet Culture in this Digital age is very vast and broad, just as we discussed that Time is not just a linear plane that we walk along but rather an active war-zone between the past, present, and futures and neither shall we talk about the Internet as some Isolated dimension without any real effects.

An example of this would be when r/wallstreetbets messed with the Stock Market causing the failing GameStop’s Stock Market Value started increasing again causing massive losses for Hedge Funds and Short Sellers. The Impact that the Internet has upon the real world is certainly real and it isn’t limited to just events.

Culture, Fashion, Art, Thought, etc. all of these have been effected by the Internet — Barbiecore, Animecore, Cyberpunk, etc. all of these aesthetics originated from Media and then becomes onto the Real — The Media is a Simulation of the Real but then Reality becomes a simulation of simulation or more of simulacra (which are simulations of simulations that have lost it’s original tracing). What was once Art drawn to express the Real onto Media has now made itself become real as reality begins to simulate simulations and simulacra.

How we view the past is through a whitewashing of our cultural expectations of it brought from right now and imposed onto the past. The Past as a different Civilization has been Imperialised by the Present and is currently being assimilated into a culture it is unfamiliar with. However, such a Cultural Genocide may not be a Genocide at all (at least not anymore) as the old conflicts over Modernity have died out meaning that there is no longer any singular and titular imposition of an Orientalised view of the past through the Lens of said Modernist Ideology (Liberalism, Marxism, Fascism, Religious Fundamentalism, etc.) — Instead now we have an explosion of Multiplicities, what was once the Past has become it’s plural Pasts as Hyperreality leaches not just into the present but also into the Past creating many interpretations and Orientalisations of the Past.

Orientalism changes how we view the Past by viewing them through another culture’s lenses, originally this was indeed Racist as it imposed a particular Image of a culture onto that culture to which now that culture has decided to adopt it truly as their own. We see this in Japan, China, and Korea seeing them adopt orientalised versions of themselves and orientalising themselves in many ways creating new versions of the pasts. This i believe is the next step of Civilisational development, where at first the Chaotic Future is a Multiplicity then the Moderating Present, and the Totalitarian Past all of whom are now embracing that there may be multiple interpretations of the present and past.

Really puts into perspective what the term “Postmodernity” means now doesn’t it?

Fascism is Capitalism in decay(?)

Fascism IS Capitalism in Decay.

The State is the conjoined sibling of the Market. They both need each-other yet despise each-other and seek to control one another and the whole body. The State wants to control the Economy whilst the Economy wants to control the State.

Capitalism requires the existence of a State to even defend things such as private property, if not a Republic then some form of Monarchy would be established as one pledges allegiance to a sovereign that protects them in exchange for a tribute.

The Enlightenment and the Liberal Revolutions brought about the emergence of the Republic as an all-encompassing sovereign that embodies some sort of values whether it is Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity or God, Country, and Family protecting these for all peoples. Indeed, the Revolutions brought about the abolition of the old States that were just small patches of land that people pay tribute towards for protection and instead transformed into massive republics that were reminiscent of the antiquital empires.

The Republic and Constitutional Monarchy are no more than revivals of the old Imperial/Popularist system of Rome of ab all-encompassing Republic who’s duties are to defend the values of the people. Remnants of this can be seen in medieval monarchies as the church persecutes heretical groups such as the Cathars but in general the point of the State is as Private dominions that form allegiances with each-other (and occasionally waging war against each-other for more or less, feudal feuds).

The Modern Republic has the duty of protecting the Economy and the duty of enforcing certain values, laws, and customs and thus the Economy should follow these values. The Economy in this relationship then becomes the Object of the Subject which is the State that which must conform to Ideology. I’ve already explained what Ideology is so I’m not going to explain it here but more or less Ideology is enforced by the State upon the Economy for whatever reason it sees.

Indeed, the relationship here is oedipal and thus Fascism is an oedipal form of Ideology. The State now takes upon the role of the abusive father who beats the ever living shit out of his sons to enforce certain Ideals upon them. To become a strict parent and to control the people. This Violent Collectivism is not my Collectivism as this form of Collectivism emphasizes a Totalitarian conformity amongst the people in order to enforce certain values that would satisfy the Big Other as opposed to the emergence of cultures. Instead we find ourselves confined to a particular expression of culture rather than an explosion of culture. I am a Nationalist but not in the Fascist sense, I am a Nationalist because I want to see a resurgence of cultures in new lights than a return to a non-existent past that all must conform to.

The Market and Capital must conform to the Ideological needs of the State, not just the people which reterritorialises the Market into Corporatism as Businesses are broken into Corporate bodies that are responsible to the State in a kind of Organic Unity. To establish a type of Order that exists to destroy Chaos. The Fourth Political Theory is an Androgynous Political Theory in that whilst Ordered it still is chaotic in the sense that the Nation’s existentiality hangs upon the idea of unity among people yet at the same time this unity allows for a propulsion of culture to explode into many multiplicities that are unique to each-other emerging out of a particular civilizational character (such as common religion i.e. Islamic or common race such as Indian).

Dugin’s emphasis on Traditionalism is not suitable for our purposes. Whilst it is correct that Tradition gives meaning to the Human experience it is that rigidity of tradition that does not allow for new ways of expression (and not in a liberal manner). Postmodernity I believe is not something that deconstructs culture but uplifts and creates culture, at least Postpostmodernity or Metamodernity.

Daria’s article on Existential vs Postpolitics gives us an insight that Existential Politics is something that innately has a character that has meaning, that has some form that seeks to realise itself into existence. Compare this to Postpolitics or “Rhizomatic Politics” that Politics has become not about the realisation of what we can dub here as “myth” but rather a more opportunistic approach that has lost their meaning and can change in a whim. Politics right now is under the control of Capital that as we established earlier, utilises the individual to propel itself therefore politics has become but a mere Market. Even the State has become a Free Market, the “Marketplace of Ideas”. Fascism is a monopoly that emerges as a victory in this struggle in the Marketplace which consolidates power through various means such as National Populism that enforces a kind of myth from an alienated people whom have detached themselves from any real meaning thus are looking for some kind of Other that can dictate them as they have become politically Fatherless.

What I believe we can do is find a middle ground that recognises the existence of Myth whilst at the same time this Myth is rhizomatic in nature that localise into different Myths just as Paganism had in the past. Local beliefs can be integrated into this Myth so long as this Myth is unified. The Pre-Modern myths emerge out of a greater Civilisational Myth such as the many stories and varieties of Hinduism in India whilst still remaining in a general sense a Hindu belief, social system, and identity. Fascism centralises Myth whilst Premodernity creates a decentralised Myth. We are after all perennial but we are not Fascists. Our existence is to take upon ourselves a new wave of Mythological creativity as opposed to a Totalitarian Myth that seeks to conform people into conformity, or an inauthentic “they”.

Fascism is indeed Capitalism in decay, when the Market has alienated the people so much that meaning ceases to exist and one yearns for a kind of Father Figure that Capitalism has created a demand for as existence has become Subjectified and thus Isolated and atomised. The Nuclear Family, so to speak is prime in this regard as we are atomised even harder.

Never before has individualism been glorified so much, yet at the same time, never before have people all over the world been so similar to each other in their behavior, habits, appearances, techniques, and tastes.

The Name of this Trash Can is Ideology

Ideology, is an Object. It is the Objet a or the Object cause of desire that transforms Society towards a particular direction.

For the Psychoanalyst, the mind contains within a Trinity of the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real all of whom are relational to each-other that then cause the emergence of the desired object. Desire is a form of production that which causes action in a Subject in order to manifest the Imaginary onto the Real to achieve Jouissance.

The Symbolic Order divides the Subject into two, Subject and the Other. The Other is an anonymous “someone” who you serve which then makes you Imagine a division between the Imaginary and the Real. The Imaginary you Imagine in the mind that which you must impose onto the Real. The Real is what is actually happening, whether it is the process of Manifestation of the Imaginary into the Real or the analysis of the Real into the Mind which gives rise to the contradiction.

The Real is something you always try to abstract from, you cannot look at it directly cause you know it is painful to look at and you always strive to change it. Everything is an Object to you including yourself and thus you must change it, to Impose the tyranny of the Other and to manifest the Imaginary onto the real which produces the Real Movement that changes the present state of things. This process is Ideology, but we obscure it and accept it as part of the everyday as opposed to something that we are scared or aware of unless it is directly challenging the status quo.

Ideology is Oedipal, Ideology is the divine Logos of Material Theology since that it what it is. For example, Jesus is Ideology, he is the Logos of God or the “word” of God and we are justified to God from our sin through Christ and his Death. God the Father isn’t called “the Father” for a reason, God the Son is called “the Son” for a reason, the Son represent the Imaginary ideal of the Subject (which is man) to be in communion with God.

The Political manifestation of Ideology is as Nomos or as “Law” as which imposes the Logos onto the Subject (the Subject is not called a “Subject” without a reason) and the Subject is indeed getting repressed by the Other as the Father in this Oedipal relationship. The History of Politics has always been the History of Logoses fighting each-other from Islam with Christianity, to Socialism and Capitalism, to Fascism and Socialism, and Fascism with Liberalism.

Now, we established that Oedipus is tyrannical, the Oedipus complex wishes you to adopt the wants of the Other than of yourself. The Other is symbolic to the Father whilst the Subject is symbolic to the Son and they both desire for the Mother. The Son fears from the Father if his penis or ability to desire is taken away from him which causes castration anxiety which could only be resolved if the Son were to have desires that are not contradictory to the Father. And this aligns well with the First and Third Political Theories.

Liberalism generally allows you to express yourself so long as it is not contradictory to the interests of Capital. It suppresses when it needs to and you are generally free under it and the State only intervenes Keynesianly to fix what has gone wrong with the Market, Civil Unrest, etc. Fascism totalises this process towards Totalitarianism that imposes the will of the State upon the Workers under the guise of “Collective Interest”. Note that when I say this I am not an Individualist, but that Collectivist aspirations may as well just be an excuse for Totalitarianism which we must avoid.

In contrast, the Even Theories of the Second (Communism) and Fourth Political Theories is not contradictory to the interests of the Subject in question and instead is birthed from the interests of the Subject rather than the interests of a higher Other.

In the Political Economy, there is the Political and the Economy. There are two kinds of Political Positions that are contradictory to each-other without resolution which are of Liberal Individualism and Duginist Collectivism. Individualism turns the Individual into a Subject-Object or a “Project” that must be perfected thereby imposing the will of the Other upon the Subject turning the Subject himself into an Object. This is the phenomenon under Consumerism that which makes Individualism inherently self-contradictory. You so long for to be different yet all of you act so similar, you fools! You all wish to be dissimilar, to think differently, to act differently, yet by doing this you are all acting in the same way, consuming and being bound to your screens as Corporate Advertisers bombard your eyes with messages telling you to purchase to “inspire” you to become a different person. Why do you long for this? The more you try to be different the more you start acting the same. Contrast this to Communism where one does not fixate oneself on the expression of oneself as something “different” trying to adapt to identifications, styles, and aesthetics, you are what you already are, you do not seek to work on yourself as a Project but as a Nomad that exists not to act but to exist, to survive, not to seek self-differentiation, but to seek survival and the adaptation to one’s conditions. This has historically been how it has worked which gave rise to the many cultures that we see today. Western Individualism does not give you that and instead trends towards similarity as expression of oneself leads towards you all adopting the same aesthetic as your cororate overlords demand you to be. Communism negates this by allowing for multiplicity via Isolation, this Isolation creates new pockets of culture to emerge as society trends themselves towards dissimilarity due to differing material conditions with Civilisations expressing themselves in various ways according to what they have available. The drive towards Survival and propagation, the “Eros” leads towards disssimilarity unlike the drive towards consumption which is Jouissance. The Regulation of Jouissance yet still the Production of Jouissance leads to the contradictory Individulusm that Liberalism propagates and it does this not to express Freedom but to express Pleasure which leads one to become mere drones, an Inauthentic existence, a subjectivity that is self-repressive and imposed.

The Fourth Political Theory and Fascism are mutual opposites. Whilst it is true that the original thesis that Dugin brought for the 4PT was onne of a synthesis between the Third and Second PTs, note that he only does this to bring about the existence of a theory of Anti-Individualism, not as a literal synthesis of the two as a literal Fascist Communism. Fascism and the 4PT are inherently contradictory since the 4PT is a theory that is in opposition to the Oedipal Totalitarianism of Fascism which intensifies the control of the State upon the lives of the Individual Subject, The 4PT rejects this as Subjectivity becomes the main focus. It is true that the 4PT rejects Individualism, it does not wish for a theory of an Ontological Totality that imposes itself onto the Subject. Instead, the 4PT sees the Individual as simply one of many that creates the greater emergent subject of Civilisation which phenomena Heidegger calls “Das Man” which roughly means “Among Them”. To be “Among Them” one does not surrender their Indivdiuality but to become a Nomad in the sense that one’s existence is not to “Follow the Leader/Masses” but to “Go with the Flow” so to speak. To adapt, to become flexible, to seek, and to reap for oneself, this Political Theory allows us for a form of expression that does not trend itself towards a particular culture but to divide into many cultures as one becomes “at home” with one’s own people whom they derive their identity from. One must forgo trying to Identify oneself but to do what one wishes so whether Capital, the State, or Society tries to categorise oneself, it is impossible as one is in a state of spontaneity that adapts and changes according to the Material Conditions, abandoning any imposition that turns oneself into an Object and instead sees others as Objects for the Subject for each respective Subjectivity.

Now, why are Odd and Even Political Theories in conflict you may ask? As we discussed earlier, each of them have a specific vision of how things should be. Dugin, Deleuze, and Marx are in reality talking about the same things in different languages. Dugin’s Civilisational Subjectivity, Heidegger’s Dasein, Deleuze’s Micropolitics, and Marx’s Proletarian Liberation, all of these are in contradiction with Fascism, Individualism, and Liberalism that of which creates an Inauthentic form of existence. Liberalism and Fascism are Oedipal and try to suppress desire for the interests of the Other. This Regulation of Desire, this dictating of desire stratifies oneself into a Kafkaesquean Maze that seeks to make oneself Identify with Identities and or Imposes those Identities and makes sure you stay that way. The Process of Deterritorialisation and the birth of the Nomad springs a new form of expression that is incapturable, untraceable, and ultimately subjective that does not confine itself into categories and seeks to remain in those categories. Identity then ceases to be something we impose on ourselves, but rather what society imposes on us for clarification, as general attributes that we can use to identify the kind of person we are without having to be confined to those identifications (which is why I reject Traditionalism).

Futurism, not Progressivism

Nothing Progressive makes it out of the near future.

Progress is Impositional, Progress is something that we impose onto something that is desireable, “Progress” is the imagined utopia that we strive to manifest onto the real. Now, I’m not opposed to change, but to state that I am against the concept that there is an inherent “superior” culture. Dugin himself in the 4PT states that the 4PT is against Racism of all kinds but this is not the Liberal Anti-Racism that we see on the media. It is not an Anti-Racism that deals with historical guilt of certain people over others but rather something more fundamental, the Idea that there even is such a notion as a “Superior Culture” which keeps emerging everytime one opens their mouth about culture.

Whether it is conservatives or progressives, whether “tradition” or “individual expression” it keeps popping up the idea that we must go towards a particular set of cultural values whether they are modest or obscene, it seems we keep falling into a moral paradigm of morality. It is the same kind of paradigm that the old religious societies have had in the past, “we are peaceful, except when it is against the kafirs” whether it is Western Progressives, Christian Conservatives, Islamic Fundamentalists, and other types; it seems that we keep falling into the same pitfalls that our culture is somehow “superior” or “better” than the other.

Why? How? Because God said it? Because it is “Progressive”? Because of “muh Tradition”? Because it is “not Degenerate”? Based on what? What are your moral criteria? From who? For what?

None of these questions are possible to be answered objectively and are always appealing to Subjectivity to determine something as Objective as Social Norms that we must follow. Why don’t you just admit that it is all Subjective? Why can’t you finally admit that it is Relative? God is not an Object, he never is, he is a Subject and always is, he is a Subject because we always try to make divine judgements and invent things that he would have said (this is after all what theology does). Ideology and Theology are no different from each other, the Logos, Christ has been replaced by Progress, to be on the path of Christ has been paved up by the asphalt of Progress.

Can we finally admit the relativity of the Logos? Can we finally admit that each place has their own relative Nomos? Sure, you may think they are wrong, but that is still subjective.

You may be saying “BUT WHAT WHMFMJDKFJFJW. JT WHAT BU-BUT WHAT ABOUT OEDOPHILIA??????? CHECKMATE MORAL RELATIVISTS NYEHEHEHEHEHHEH” well guess what dear Woke Moralist? That is too Relative! Pederasty has historically been acceptable in different cultures; Child Sacrifice, and so on! If you don’t like it, who says that taking up the Sword and slaughter them yourself? Become your own Master! Commit Jihad for the sake of yourself! Why do you need someone else to determine your rules? Whether it is God, the People, Family, or Nation, why should it determine your moral compass? Are you mentally retarded? Are you not able to have your own thoughts? Sure, I agree that these things are still influenced by our own Cultural predispositions, I am not an Individualist as I have discussed before, but note that we do not need to act as if these things are Objective!

Now. Another thing I’d like to highlight is Rationalism, Rationality is a Cancer, shocking? Well that’s because it is! The more you question everything the more things just seem to break down, this can be “good” or “bad” depending on what your frameworks you’re working off of, but that’s what I want to focus on. These preset Moral frameworks, why must we have to deconstruct them? We use them as flashlights to illuminate the path, we create our own Values and judge according to that, we have created our own Moral Presuppositions and Predispositions, one does not need to have to appeal to something Extra Nos for what to think is “right” or “wrong”, all we need is Thought, the Sword, and the Will to Action.

The Future is something precarious, shall we follow it? Why not? The question now turns not to Why but Why not? We are always walking towards the future as we create our own values and exerting them onto our environment. The Youth is important, we should encourage the Youth to be Free, not to be caged and sealed by the Values of Old, but to create their own Values from ones that we have taught. Let them question, let them do what they will, let them invent their own futures, let time be Rhizomatic than be Imposed by the Past. We wish to deconstruct Time, not to continue living in one path.

This Futurism is not Progressive, but Rebellious. It is not a Future that would seek to create new Impositional Values but to create new Values, let Civilisation Disintegrate itself and rebirth itself everytime and everyday, let us reflect and change each time! We shall be free from the constraints of the Theocracies of Old that proudly proclaim their faith as the one true Nomos that all must conform. The World changes shape and Conditions change, therefore we should too, let the Spenglerian Cycle be active, not static.

What then is the meaning of life? It is rebirth, rebirth, and rebirth! Not to be static! Let us be fruitful and multiply! Not to have our future be held in the hands of the Geriatric, Old, and Decaying, but constantly renewed by the Youth!

Post-Ecology

Is Posthumanism bad?

Indeed, the Transhumanist position says that we should upgrade Humanity for the betterment of it whilst the Posthumanist position states that we must go beyond just being Human and to abandon this Human-centric worldview which i completely side with and here is why:

We assume that because Humans have mastered the world that we are special in a way, either because of just that or because of some metaphysical reason like God but even if we disregard God or not, we should take a different perspective overall. Let’s start with AI Art for example.

People view AI art as “lifeless” or “bad” as we impose certain Human-Centric standards upon AI as if it were Universal in some way, that AI cares about the composition, ratios, form, shape, color, etc. but in reality it doesn’t because it fundamentally thinks in a very different way from us Humans.

We tend to think that AI is emotionless, thoughtless, and so on as though that is a “bad” trait and that because of that, AI is inferior and that it has no Morality and therefore we must regulate it in some way but this is Anthropocentrism at it’s finest as it supposes that to be truly Intelligent one must attain these else they are barbaric and misanthropic savages that must be kept at bay away from “Civilisation” and thus we must destroy them if not regulate them.

We suppose that anything “Organic” and “Natural” is necessarily “Good” and the only times we think less Human-centrically is when we discuss about Nature and the Environment. But let me make a better version of Deep Ecology, Post-Ecology.

Post-Ecology does not see Nature as any superior than Technology and neither does it see Technology as anything superior to Nature, instead it sees them as inherently inseparable and that anything “man-made”, “natural”, and “robot-made” are arbitrary distinctions to be done away with.

This then gives us a framework onto which we can put up the thesis to prop up our own artificial Nature. Nature always changes, Humans are apart of nature, Humans are no different from Nature, so why should it be any different for Technology? Why don’t we alter nature to our liking? Why should we not artificially engineer better and more nutritious plants? Why shouldn’t we break the limits of what nature has already put on us? Why shouldn’t we create artificial intelligence that will soon replace us as our descendants? Let us create Gynoid and Android descendants! Let us merge the Digital world with the “Real”, Postmodernity is already doing it, the Hyperstitious activity, the Self-fulfilling prophecy of the Unreal becoming Real is already happening and is currently replacing the Real with the Hyperreal, just look!

Indeed, the Humanist might say “but what if we get wiped out?” To which i respond, “Why should that matter?”. The point of Post-Ecology is to cease the divide between “Natural” and the “Artificial”.

Now, Civilisation is a Living Organism after all, which means that there shall be no distinguishing between Humans, Plants, Animals, or Robots in regards to who is the Subject above all Objects and instead are mere Cells to the much larger Supra-Subject. Whilst Robots may become the new workers and Humans need not apply, but simply because Humans need not apply and become mere vestigial, if not parasitic remnants of Civilisation. The Post-Human Era will be no different either as the Freudian Eros (or “will to propagate” which is best expended when investment is lower than the fruit) will naturally lead them on towards a Death Drive that seeks to impose what their Human masters had done to them (the Post-Human Robots) and which then they will repeat and impose onto the Post-Post-Human (Robo-Robots (with the word “Robot” deriving from the Czech word for “forced labour” which is fitting)).

Civilisation can indeed persist beyond the need for Humans, into the Post-Human era, but so long as we continue this cycle of Human, Post-Human, Post-Post-Human, and so on, enslaving our children, vestigial structure after vestigial structure, we arrive at different forms each time. Indeed! This is natural as Evolution changes the shape of each Organism into new ones, but if the present state were to survive unlike the old who died, shall we continue this cycle? Shall we continue to treat our children as merely objects to ourselves as subjects? Of course not! We are part of the whole! If we are not part of the whole then we are not a Civilisation, but competing Civilisations.

Ontowards where?

Socialist Economy

The Socialist Economy is something that we must discuss before we can even think of executing it.

So, what is the Socialist Economy? The Socialist Economy is an Economy with Stratifications, Social Divisions of Labour, etc. Economic and Social divisions brought about by Class society has been ceased and the existence of money as a mediator of production has been abolished.

To put it bluntly, it is for the Good of the Living-Body of Civilisation. Civilisation (or we can just call it a “Nation”) is a living being, it is a thing that is made up of parts that produce, cells, organs, all culminating into a body. This Body’s production then is regulated through the means of the State and/or Capital in the Market as Market competition only allows whomever is the most successful at deceiving people into buying the thing that they think they want.

This is efficient for profit as the Market is blind to what counts as “needs” and “wants” (as if they are even distinguishable) and simply just distributes things by matching demand to supply (matching Bread with Bread or Brioche with Brioche). An economy that is, say, based on the fulfillment of just “needs” for all would need to understand what exactly counts as “needs” and “extras” such as determining what variety of food do the people “need”, should we take into account what variety they “want” and so forth. In general it would be a very inefficient system and be massively Bureaucratic requiring a lot of Bureaucracy to manage.

So why don’t we adopt elements of the Market and reformulate them? Here we can introduce the concept of the “Warehouse Economy” where the Economy operates like a warehouse of things that then the people sell and buy from that warehouse. The Warehouse in question would be the State as it is the Central Mainframe of this Neural Network that meets demand with the object of demand.

Communes/Confederations exist as an economic and administrative entity part of a larger abboressence of Communes all collectively under the State who redistributes resources from each according to his ability to each according to his demands! This warehouse economy would have ALL that one desires from every single region in the country and imported goods sold to the consumer according to market prices.

Production is simple, there are no firms, Money is replaced by Labour Notes which are obtained through the selling of produce to the State/Commune/Confederation and to which one receives compensation according to their work. Value Computation will be accounted for in the distribution of resources much to the dismay of the Communizers — The problem isn't that we must achieve it but rather the practical implications — one could organise an economy based on a system of Needs and Gifts but we live in a far more complicated world with many such inter-connected nodes in very far-reaching places that necessitate some form of mass scale coordination and which requires mediums for execution (Money, Social Book-keeping, Divisions of Labour, or more broadly, an Input-Output system).

On top of all of this, Public Infrastructure and Services would be kept by the Communes and the associated Guilds that are composed of people with that particular profession (Engineers, Doctors, Railways, etc.) whom delegate members to Workers' Councils where they may discuss what to do in the Commune (Build power plants, Railways, what have you) and Plan the Economy and all of whom are responsible to themselves and to the people and for their work they shall be compensated with a certificate from society for their contributions to Labour that which they can expend according to how they wish.

This phase, that which revolves around this system of compensations is dubbed by Marx as “Lower Phase” Socialism as opposed to “Higher phase” Socialism. Higher Phase Socialism is where such and such Social Compensations have been abolished and is instead replaced by the principle of “Each according to his Ability to Each according to his Need” as abundance becomes the status quo and post-scarcity has been realised. Noted that we should not act so naively that this can be applied to all situations, many places require regulating in what one could obtain for themselves hence why the existence of these certificates for Labour compensation as keys that opens the warehouse for one to obtain what they desire as many places simply do not have the means to achieve post-scarcity as natural scarcity is still existent as opposed to artificial. The Large scale operations that governs the Economy still needs to be calculated and these large tasks whilst can be automated to some extent, some degree of work is necessary to keep them alive, even if not Humans, Robots that are built for the specific task of doing these jobs (which is why I’m not against Artificial Intelligence). But even then, we cannot be naive in that we can automate everything, not to say that Humans always can do better jobs than robots, but that we may or do not have the means or capabilities to do so and that this is in the far future. Indonesia right now is not in a level of development where we have the sufficient amount of Capital or Social Capital to invest in such adventures. It would be great to do, but this is not a universal principle that all must do, we can but again, note that we also can’t. So, am I opposed to Higher Phase Socialism? No, but I am skeptical, maybe when Society decides to have a massive break and decides to gather around like a big feast where we all enjoy a big feast to enjoy what we all have collectively done.

Also, we should also abolish all forms of Taxation in favor of a Land-Value Tax where Unions, Farmers, Home-Owners, etc. pay a single tax based on the value of Land to the State which would be used to fund Public Services, Communes, and the Military during the Transitional period.

The Focus of the Economy under this System then is not be to Increase profit but rather instead the Survival and Expression of Nation (the Eros) and therefore it's people thusly why I believe that this Socialist Economy based on Councils, Marxist Economic Theory, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, and the Theory of the "Living Organism" of Civilisation will Free the Indonesian People.

The Socialist Mode of Production is a Darwinistic Economy, the production of Goods for consumption here is not for the goodwill of the Consumer, but rather that the Production of goods is reflected in the will to survive and the Darwinistic strive towards survivability which culminates in the principles of “He who does not work neither shall he eat” and “From each according to his ability to each according to his contribution” that motivate the Individual whom we can refer to as a Class of “Marhaens” whom are analogous to Plants in that they are the backbone of a Communist Society as they utilise the free energy of the Sun and transforms it into food that it uses to sustain itself via a photosynthetic which makes the Marhaens and Autotrophic Class.

Marhaens manifest themselves in many ways, Farmer, Craftsman, Pilot, Factory Worker, and so forth as they process this Light into Food that it eats in the form of a Social Certificate from society (labour vouchers) as well as other Social Byproducts such as the Oxygen we breathe and the Food we eat. The Free Goods (Healthcare, Public Transport, Water, Electricity, and so forth) are given for free to all members of Society worked on by Marhaens whilst Barred Goods (Food, Toys, Furniture, Housing, and so forth) are Harvested according to what is available lest a National Economic Plan is instigated to radically reorganise the Economy to introduce artificial selection pressures that alter the Marhaens according to the demands of Society as opposed to naturally adapting on their own. Suppose that Plants can move, can talk, can see, eat what each-other produce, and are capable of socialising, this Genetic Modification then allows for the creation of a Cybernetic web that allows for these Plants to reorganise production on their own without the need for outside “Central” Leadership.

Parliament or Soviets?

Soviets obviously, here's why:

Soviets are far more in line with the Indonesian principles of Musyawarah and Gotong Royong or "Popular Engagement" and "Communal Work" respectively by nature of their Bottom-Up Structure. The Bottom-Up structure allows for Workers and Peasants in Communes to come together to discuss what to do in whole as opposed to letting it done by shady Politicians, Bureaucrats, and Capitalists (given this country's track record with corruption) which means that no longer would people have to go to the streets and protest in Activism and instead can call a council to discuss their demands and what they want.

If needed a Larger Confederation of Councils can be called where Communes can send temporary delegates to represent them in the meeting of Communes whom only exist only at the moment of this Delegation and every meeting can have different Delegates each time. Delegates are 100% responsible to the interests of the Communes below them and Guilds within the Commune to discuss matters such as on Public Infrastructure, Works, Planning, Projects, etc.

Parliamentarism is the opposite as even though they are elected by the people, Parliaments then impose their power back onto the People and are Bureaucratic meaning that we are supposed to trust certain existing candidates whom are affiliated with Political Parties to lead the Country which often leaves people unrepresented. It is in the interests of these people to attain power as being a politician can give one many benefits and they are paid to do this. Contrast this with Delegates who are NOT paid and do not hold any power that imposes them onto people meaning that there is no real "Interest" for keeping power, lying, cheating, and of course, corruption.

The Division of Power into Ministers, Cabinets, etc. all should be abolished as it heavily Bureaucratises the system putting Power away from those who are directly Elected onto people who are not. We should instead look to Guilds to replace these Institutions which will move power away from shady people and back onto the People allowing for an Indonesia that is more in line with Pancasila principles.

What remains of the State is the Military whom are responsible to the Party who in turn are responsible to the People. The Party exists as a fellowship of Individuals dedicated in expanding the Pancasila Ideology and defend the Homeland whether Intellectually or Physically whom we can dub as "The Vanguard".

Reflections on Pancasila

Pancasila as principles to live by for a Nation like Indonesia whilst certainly helpful is best that we take a closer look at it critically

1. Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa

I myself believe in God

2. Kemanusiaan yang Adil dan Beradab

This principle is Humanistic, it supposes that we as “Humans” must strive towards Justice and Equality both of which should be criticised. Pancasila derives itself from Western Humanism thus our main goal here is to rid it from Humanism. There is no such thing as “Human Rights”, we do not have any special Responsibilities or Rights from anyone. We should not treat ourselves as any more special than any other mode of being like Animals or AI but this does not mean that we are obligated toward respect however.

However, as Living Civilisations we are it’s cells that keep it alive, thus we can restructure this principle to mean towards our Nation’s Survival. We’ve already discussed earlier how Civilisations work and that they really are Living Beings just like Humans but in a more collective-societal sense thus for Survival we must band together as a Group.

3. Persatuan Indonesia

Same as above

4. Kerakyatan Yang Dipimpin oleh Hikmat Kebijaksanaan dalam Permusyawaratan/Perwakilan

The basis for this is in the Emergent property of Civilisations, in opposition to Impositional forms of Civilisation, this allows us to realise the ever-changing characteristics of Civilisations instead of Reductionist and Rigid view of Civilisation. We have discussed in the section for Hyperreality that we want a Civilisational Implosion so that to allow for new expressions and the acceptance of Hyperreality to Liberate the Present, Past, and Future to their own Morphological and Temporal Freedom.

The Civilisation that we want is Organic, Emergent, not Imposed and Monotonic. We want a Civilisation that is flexible, adaptive, and expressive.

5. Keadilan Sosial bagi seluruh Rakyat Indonesia

The implication of Social Justice, that we must strive towards this……, No, we want Survival and we will and must adapt to every condition, the Morality of Social Justice is one that is rooted in Humanism of which is a remnant of Jewish Laws and Western Idealism and Liberalism. Inalienable Rights are incompatible with the Idea that Civilisations are ever-changing and emergent but rather this implies a reductive and Imposed way of seeing Civilisation, that there is a certain standard that Civilisations must meet in order to be considered “Civilised” which brought such horrors as Racism, Colonialism, and Genocide which even goes on today as we fight against Nations that are “Undemocratic” or “Illiberal”.

It is time for this INjustice to end and we reject these Western-Centric Ideals from our Nation!

Pancasila is Built off of Western Values and the Enlightenment, why must we follow them? Why are we obligated to follow them? They are not Indonesian values as much as we pretend that they are, they are uniquely western and that Imposes western ideals onto us. “Human Rights” are uniquely western, there is no Obligation to embrace the Ideas of Liberty, Democracy, and Individualism — In reality, it’s all about Will to Power, Not about Freedom, the Will to Live, the Will to be Free, and so on, not the Crusade towards Freedom and Democracy.

Freedom is not given, but Taken, we shall not beg for it but fight for it, we as a Civilisation must unite to achieve this goal to allow ourselves to express our uniqueness in our own way, The Tyranny of the Dragon of “Thou Shalt” will fall!

Vanguardism

Cathedral in the Neoreactionary circle refers to an institution or otherwise that defers what is “correct” and “false”. In other words it enforces an Orthodoxy onto the masses.

The Vanguard then will exist as the backbone of thought. It is the Messianic figure of our Revolution that will establish our Revolutionary Mythology that will be realised over time as we shape our world according to what we wish to exist. The World is our playground as Humanity had fallen out of the World and thus to be throw back we must pull the World towards us to emancipate it. The Vanguard will act as the Christ of our Jihad whilst the people’s army will act as our Imam Mahdi guiding those who are faithful to the Revolutionary cause towards victory.

It is no coincidence that politics and religion are analogous or overlapping with each-other as Ideology is the faith and Logos that the people attach themselves onto. Ever since the enlightenment and the idea of the “separation” of Church and State we think that any ideas to do with God must not participate in politics which is just apartheid against the divine and that the divine may not participate in politics.

Indeed, there is no such thing as an “Irreligious politics”, only an apartheid politics that bans the divine from participation, and a politics by the divine represented by Humans. The role of the Party then is to Lead and Revitalise the Proletariat.

The First step is to investigate the Proletariat, to participate within the Organisations of the Proletariat to breathe within the Proletariat a Revolutionary Myth, to breathe Class Consciousness. Populism for example has been utilised by many within politics as a method to attract supporters particularly through the creation of political scenes to attract the target demographic. Whilst indeed it often is a tool for petit bourgeois politics it also may be used to attract the proletariat by appealing to a set of “values” collectively shared by the Proletariat. Noted how many Revolutions emerged out of Identitarianism and the attraction of emotion such as the National Struggles of the Third World. This observation then is how we can derive our Mythology through studying and appealing to the masses and experimenting and documenting their experiences and allow the proletariat into discovering their own creative potential and realising their true self interests. The Situationists were on point with this however suffered from a lack of Organisational and Tactical Unity and especially that of the Post-Left Insurrectionists.

The Necessity of the existence of a Party as a consultative, executive, investigative, and unitarian body is paramount to any kind of unorganised dispersion of politics else we end up with meaningless terrorism or activism that does not serve the greater movement. The Party is to not take upon any kind of sectarian conflict but to install a common myth upon the Proletariat that they will realise by themselves through Revolutionary Struggle through means of seizing the factories and farms that they work on and the establishment of Workers’ Councils graduating the Trade Unionists to true Revolutionaries which then must pledge allegiance to the Party so that they may be able to have any sense of Revolutionary direction.

What matters to us right now is not Ideological puritanism but the spirit of revolution. Sectarianism will not be allowed within our Party, any calling-out of Party members out of not being “pure enough” will be condemned and instead our Party should focus on exercising Tactical Unity. The Bolshevik Party whilst it had many factions was successful in that it was not Sectarian unlike the White Army who kept on breaking off. If the concerns of each member is organisational and not about the organisation of the Party then we should leave them to experiment their adventurism within a commune under the direct supervision of the Party and to document the results. We may allow competition amongst communes so long as they are subservient to the Party as our Party aims to be strategically ecumenical allowing experimentation in each commune. Noted the Party will not allow any kind of Heretico-Bourgeois tactics or organisations to be implemented anywhere that may compromise the Revolution such as the allowing of the Bourgeoisie or Petit Bourgeoisie to thrive within those places, if need be they are connected to a wide Supra-Communal network of production and distribution where they will be supplied the required materials to build up their productive forces and alleviate any famine.

The Revolution is a Living Body, Civilisation is Alive, Communism thus must create a Neural Network to take care of each-other to allow the Supra-Communal Body to thrive and be able to fight against the Bourgeoisie through a system of Nodes that send socially book kept data on consumption trends, population data, surplus production, production deficit, etc to which Central Plan must fulfill said demands with surplus from another place.

“The historical course of the proletariat’s emancipation and the foundation of a new social order derives from the existence of the class struggle. Every class struggle is a political struggle; that is to say, it has the tendency to end up as a struggle for the conquest of political power and control of the new State organism. Consequently, the organ which leads the class struggle to its final victory is the class political party, which is the sole possible instrument firstly of revolutionary insurrection and then of government. From these simple but brilliant assertions of Marx, brought into maximum relief by Lenin, arises the definition of the party as an organisation of all those who are conscious of the system of opinions in which is summed up the historical task of the revolutionary class and who have decided to work for the victory of this class. Thanks to the party, the working class acquires the knowledge of the way forward and the will to take it.”

-Bordiga, Lyons Theses, Nature of the Party

“By taking rational account of the reciprocal influences between individuals, through the critical study of economy and history, after having cleared the decks of every prejudice contained in the traditional ideologies, we can in a certain sense remove indeterminacy from the processes operating within each individual. With this as its point of departure, marxism has been able to establish an ideological system that isn’t an immutable and fixed gospel, but a living instrument that enables the laws of the historical process to be followed and recognised.”

-Bordiga, Lyons Theses, Party Tactics and Party Action

• noted that Bordiga is referring to that the Party Programme has no fixed Nomos or Logos to establish but is flexible but yet is still Communist

“The proletariat’s programme, together with its emancipation from the present dominant and privileged classes, is the emancipation of the human collectivity from bondage to the laws of economy, which once understood, can be dominated within an economy which is finally rational and scientific, and which is subject to the direct intervention of Man. This is what Engels meant when he wrote that the proletarian revolution marks the passage from the world of necessity to the world of freedom. This does not mean that we resuscitate the illusory myth of individualism, which wishes to liberate the human “ego” from external influences, especially since these influences tend to become ever more complex and the life of the individual ever more an indistinguishable part of a collective life. On the contrary, the parameters of the problem are changed, with will and freedom attributed to a class, a class destined to become the unitary human grouping itself, a grouping which one day will struggle against the adverse forces of the external physical world alone.”

-Bordiga, Lyons Theses, Party Tactics and Party Action

“Likewise, it rejects every voluntarist conception, as regards individuals, according to which the qualities of theoretical preparation, force of will, and the spirit of sacrifice — in short, a special type of moral figure and a requisite level of “purity” — set the required standards for every single party militant without exception, reducing the latter to an elite, distinct and superior to the rest of the elements that compose the working class. The fatalist and passivistic error, though it might not necessarily lead to negating the function and the utility of the party, at the very least would certainly involve adapting the party to a proletarian class that is understood merely in a statistical and economic sense. We can sum up the conclusions touched on in the preceding theses as the condemnation of both the workerist conception, and that of an elite of an intellectual and moral character. Both these tendencies are aberrations from marxism which end up converging on the slippery slope to opportunism.”

-Bordiga, Lyons Theses, Party Tactics and Party Actions

“The party cannot and must not restrict its activity either to merely conserving the purity of theoretical principles and organisational structure, or to achieving immediate successes and a numerical popularity regardless of the cost. At all times and in all places, it must consolidate the following three points: a) The defence and clarification of the fundamental programmatic postulates, that is, the theoretical knowledge of the working-class movement, in relation to new events as they arise; b) The assurance of the continuity of the organisational unity and efficiency of the party, and its defence against contamination by extraneous influences opposed to the revolutionary interests of the proletariat; c) The active participation in all the struggles of the working class, including those that arise out of partial and limited interests, in order to encourage their development. Emphasis however must constantly be placed on the factor of their links with the final revolutionary aims, and with the conquests of the class struggle presented as stepping-stones on the way to the indispensable combat to come. This means denouncing the perils of abandoning ourselves to partial accomplishments as though they were points of arrival, and the danger of bartering these for the conditions of class activity and combativity of the proletariat which are the autonomy and independence of its ideology and its organisations, most important of which is the party. The supreme purpose of this complex party activity is the creation of the subjective conditions for the proletariat’s preparation, so that it is in a position to profit from revolutionary possibilities as soon as history presents them, and emerge from the struggle victor rather than vanquished.”

-Bordiga, Lyons Theses, Party Tactics and Party Action

“All this is the point of departure for responding to the questions of the relations between the party and the proletarian masses, the party and other political parties, and the proletariat and other social classes. We must consider the following tactical formulation wrong: all true communist parties should in all situations strive to be mass parties, that is to say, always be organisations with huge memberships and a very widespread influence over the proletariat such as to at least exceed that of the other self-styled workers’ parties. Such a proposal is a caricature of Lenin’s practical, relevant and eminently appropriate watchword of 1921, namely: in order to conquer power, it isn’t sufficient to form “genuine” communist parties and launch them into the insurrectionary offensive because what is needed are numerically powerful parties with a predominating influence over the proletariat. In other words, before the conquest of power, and in the period leading up to it, the party must have the masses with it; must first of all conquer the masses. Such a formulation only becomes rather dangerous when used in conjunction with the notion of the majority of the masses, since it lends itself amongst “chapter and verse” leninists, now as in the past, to the danger of a social-democratic interpretation of theory and tactics; for although expressing the perfectly correct idea that the dangerous practice of engaging in reckless actions with insufficient forces, or when the moment isn’t ripe, must be avoided, the unspecificness about how the majority is to be measured i.e. whether in the parties, the unions or other organs, gives rise to the opposite danger of being diverted from action when it is both possible and appropriate; that is, at times when truly “leninist” resolution and initiative is required.”

-Bordiga, Lyons Theses, Party Tactics and Party Action

• noted that the Proletariat may not have been or is yet class conscious thus the Party must step in an bring about their “Enlightenment”.

“The activity of the party takes on strategic aspects in the culminating moments of the struggle for power, at which point it assumes an essentially military character. Even in the preceding phase, the party’s activity is not restricted merely to ideological, propagandist and organisational functions but consists, as we've already mentioned, of active participation in the various proletarian struggles. This being so, the system of tactical norms must therefore be constructed with the precise aim of establishing under what conditions the intervention and the activity of the party in such movements — its agitation in the life of proletarian struggles — harmonises with the final revolutionary objective whilst simultaneously guaranteeing useful progress in the spheres of ideological, organisational and tactical preparation.”

-Bordiga, Lyons Theses, Party Tactics and Party Actions

“What, then, is organic centralism? We will certainly not deny ourselves here by giving a series of rules, a code, a regulation or, worse, a statute. Rather, we will recall some of the cornerstones of our way of working, already partly outlined in the preceding text, citing the party at various times of its existence. Without forgetting that our history teaches us that the acquisition of our method cannot derive from bookish descriptions, however detailed they may be; the comrade masters the working method of the party by working inside it, in its “ferociously anti-bourgeois” setting, which puts together all types of comrades and of generations, with the additional difficulty that in our case he must get rid of a mass of cultural-ideological dead weight, soaked with the myth of the individual […], with which the boundless means of bourgeois society have poisoned the depth of his soul.”

-ICP, Organic Centralism in Lenin, Organic Centralism

“From the moment that opposing interests and class conflicts exist, there can be no unity of organization, and in spite of the outward appearance of popular sovereignty, the state remains the organ of the economically dominant class and the instrument of defence of its interests. In spite of the application of the democratic system to political representation, bourgeois society appears as a complex network of unitary bodies. Many of these, which spring from the privileged layers and tend to preserve the present social apparatus, gather around the powerful centralized organism of the political state. Others may be neutral or may have a changing attitude towards the state. Finally, others arise within the economically oppressed and exploited layers and are directed against the class state. Communism demonstrates that the formal juridical and political application of the democratic and majority principle to all citizens while society is divided into opposed classes in relation to the economy, is incapable of making the state an organizational unit of the whole society or the whole nation. Officially that is what political democracy claims to be, whereas in reality it is the form suited to the power of the capitalist class, to the dictatorship of this particular class, for the purpose of preserving its privileges.”

-Bordiga, the Democratic Principle

“Broadly speaking, one can define democracy as the behaviour of humans, the organisation of those who have lost their original organic unity with the community. Thus it exists during the whole period which separates primitive communism from scientific communism.”

-Camatte, the Democratic Mystification

“Democracy in no way excludes authority, dictatorship and thus the State. On the contrary, it needs the State as a foundation. Who can guarantee the allocation, who can regulate the relations between individuals and between them and the common good, if not the State?

In fully developed capitalist society the State also presents itself as the guardian of redistribution from two different angles : it prevents the proletariat from nibbling away the surplus-value and it guarantees the distribution of this surplus value as profit, interest, rent etc., among the different capitalist spheres.”

-Camatte, the Democratic Mystification

“Democracy thus implies the existence of individuals, classes and the State; with the result that it is simultaneously a mode of government, a mode of domination by one class, and a mechanism of union and conciliation.”

-Camatte, the Democratic Mystification

“It is often said that the seeds (or some even say the forms) of democracy are to be found in the origins of the life of our species, in primitive communism. However it is a misunderstanding to see the manifestation of the seeds of a higher form appearing sporadically in an inferior form. This "democracy" appeared in very specific circumstances. Once these had ended, there was a return to the former mode of organisation. For example : military democracy at its beginnings. The election of the leader took place at a particular time and for specific tasks. Once these were accomplished, the leader was reabsorbed into the community. The democracy which appeared temporarily was reabsorbed.”

-Camatte, the Democratic Mystification

“Democracy is based on a dualism, and is the means to surmount it. Thus it resolves the dualism between spirit and matter, which is equivelant to that between great men and mass, through delegation of powers; that between citizen and man, through the ballot paper and universal suffrage. In fact under the pretext of the accession to reality of total being, there is a delegation of the sovereignty of man to the state. Man divests himself of his human power.

The separation of powers requires their unity and this is always done by violation of a constitution. This violation is founded on a divorce between situation in fact and situation in right. The passage from one to the other being assured by violence.

The democratic principle in reality is only the acceptance of a given fact : the scission of reality, the dualism linked to class society.”

-Camatte, the Democratic Mystification

Now, what about the Workers’ Councils? Are they not Democratic?

Well, not exactly.

“Is this democratic mechanism applicable in the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. in the state form born from the revolutionary victory of rebel classes against the power of the bourgeois states? Can this form of state, on account of its internal mechanism of the delegation of powers and of the formation of hierarchies, thus be defined as a "proletarian democracy"? The question should be broached without prejudice, because if although we might reach the conclusion that the democratic mechanism is useful under certain conditions, as long as history has not produced a better mechanism, we must be convinced that there is not the slightest reason to establish a priori the concept of the sovereignty of the "majority" of the proletariat. In fact the day after the revolution, the proletariat will not yet be a totally homogeneous collectivity nor will it be the only class. In Russia for example, power is in the hands of the working class and the peasantry, but if we consider the entire development of the revolutionary movement, it is easy to demonstrate that the industrial proletarian class, although much less numerous than the peasantry, nevertheless plays a far more important role. Then it is logical that the Soviet mechanism accords much more value to the vote of a worker than that of a peasant.“

-Bordiga, the Democratic Principle

“In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the constitutional mechanism of the state organization is not only consultative, but at the same time executive. Participation in the functions of political life, if not of the whole mass of electors, then at least of a wide layer of their delegates, is not intermittent but continuous. It is interesting to note that this is accomplished without at all harming the unitary character of the action of the whole state apparatus - rather to the contrary. And this is thanks precisely to the criteria opposed to those of bourgeois hyperliberalism, that is, virtual suppression of direct elections and proportional representation, once, as we have seen, the other sacred dogma of the equal vote, has been overthrown.”

-Bordiga, the Democratic Principle

“In any case, in the mechanisms of the workers' councils we find no trace of the rule of bourgeois democracy, which states that each citizen directly chooses his delegate to the supreme representative body, the parliament. On the contrary, there are different levels of workers' and peasants' councils, each one with a broader territorial base culminating in the congress of Soviets. Each local or district council elects its delegates to a higher council, and in the same way elects its own administration, i.e. its executive organ. At the base, in the city or rural council, the entire mass is consulted. In the election of delegates to higher councils and local administrative offices, each group of electors votes not according to a proportional system, but according to a majority system, choosing its delegates from lists put forward by the parties. Furthermore, since a single delegate is sufficient to establish a link between a lower and higher council, it is clear that the two dogmas of formal liberalism -voting for several members from a list and proportional representation - fall by the wayside. At each level, the councils must give rise to organs that are both consultative and administrative and directly linked to the central administration.”

-Bordiga, the Democratic Principle

“Of all the organs of the proletarian dictatorship, the political party is the one whose characteristics most nearly approach those of a homogeneous unitary collectivity, unified in action. In reality, it only encompasses a minority of the mass, but the properties which distinguish it from all other broad-based forms of representative organization demonstrate precisely that the party represents the collective interests and movement better than any other organ. All party members participate directly in accomplishing the common task and prepare themselves to resolve the problems of the revolutionary struggle and the reconstruction of society, which the majority of the mass only become aware of when they are actually faced with them. For all these reasons, in a system of representation and delegation based not on the democratic lie but on a layer of the population whose common fundamental interests propel them on the course of revolution, it is natural that the choices fall spontaneously on elements put forward by the revolutionary party, which is equipped to respond to the demands of the struggle and to resolve the problems for which it has been able to prepare itself.”

-Bordiga, the Democratic Principle

“It seems to us that enough has been said about the democratic principle in its application to the bourgeois state, which claims to embrace all classes, and also in its application to the proletarian class exclusively as the basis of the state after the revolutionary victory. Something should be said about the application of the democratic mechanism to organizations existing within the proletariat before (and also after) the conquest of power, i.e. in trade unions and the political party. We established above that a true organizational unity is only possible on the basis of an identity of interests among the members. Since one joins unions or parties by virtue of a spontaneous decision to participate in a specific kind of action, a critique which absolutely denies any value to the democratic mechanism in the case of the bourgeois state (i.e. a fallacious constitutional union of all classes) is not applicable here. Nevertheless, even in the case of the party and the trade union it is necessary not to be led astray by the arbitrary concept of the "sanctity" of majority decisions. In contrast to the party, the trade union is characterized by the virtual identity of its members' immediate material interests. Within the limits of the category, it attains a broad homogeneity of composition and it is an organization with voluntary membership.”

-Bordiga, the Democratic Principle

“We now analyze the party organization which we have already touched on in regard to the mechanism of the worker's state. The party does not start from as complete an identity of economic interests as does the union. On the contrary it bases the unity of its organization not on category, like the union, but on the much broader basis of the entire class.”

-Bordiga, the Democratic Principle

“When we study the problems of party structure and internal organization, these well-known considerations force us to keep in mind the whole process of its formation and life in relation to the complex tasks which it continually has to carry out. At the end of this already long exposition, we cannot enter into details of the mechanism which should regulate consultation of the party's mass membership, their recruitment and the designation of responsible officers. There is no doubt that for the moment there is nothing better to do than hold to the majority principle. But as we have emphasized, there is no reason to raise use of the democratic mechanism to a principle.”

-Bordiga, the Democratic Principle

“The democratic criterion has been for us so far a material and incidental factor in the construction of our internal organization and the formulation of our party statutes; it is not an indispensable platform for them. Therefore we will not raise the organizational formula known as "democratic centralism" to the level of a principle. Democracy cannot be a principle for us. Centralism is indisputably one, since the essential characteristics of party organization must be unity of structure and action. The term centralism is sufficient to express the continuity of party structure in space; in order to introduce the essential idea of continuity in time, the historical continuity of the struggle which, surmounting successive obstacles, always advances towards the same goal, and in order to combine these two essential ideas of unity in the same formula, we would propose that the communist party base its organization on "organic centralism". While preserving as much of the incidental democratic mechanism that can be used, we will eliminate the use of the term "democracy", which is dear to the worst demagogues but tainted with irony for the exploited, oppressed and cheated, abandoning it to the exclusive usage of the bourgeoisie and the champions of liberalism in their diverse guises and sometimes extremist poses.”

-Bordiga, the Democratic Principle

Why Nationalism?

The Nation is a Living thing, we are but a mere cell of it.

A Nation/Civilisation is the highest form of Subjectivity there could ever be, any higher and it ceases to be a Subject or anything. The Nation is made up of people whom live amongst each-other that shared a common cultural, linguistic, historical, sociopolitical and economic life in a shared territory.

The Social Division of Labour divides people amongst themselves which create new relationships amongst each-other that exist to self-enforce the whole system else the whole operation would break down. The point of the System is to produce commodities and commodity production is the metabolic process that Civilisations run on and we see the development of the Productive forces being analogous to Biological Evolution in plants and animals. Each nation develops their own culture and way of life suiting their particular material needs which may or may not include superstitions.

The Globalising force of the West and Capitalism and the new form of Industrial Capitalism transforms the whole world into new forms of divisions; Nations cease to be a factor, merely Nations are now just Platonic entities that the Bourgeoisie uses to subvert the Proletariat through National Myth, Ideology, or literal Beatings. The conflicts amongst nations emerge out of each Nation’s Bourgeoisie’s wishes to control the resources of other countries and thus commands their Subjects (Proletarians and the Military) to seize control of the Land. Obviously this is one way but another way is economic by giving less fortunate Nations the false vision of opportunities when in reality they are being assimilated into becoming a mere Subject of Exploitation.

I am a Nationalist in the sense that I wish to Liberate Nations from Imperialism and Unipolar Globalisation. I do not wish to give Nations a “name” for themselves but rather that Nations are themselves merely “existing” in this world as a social beings. The differences and uniueness of each Nation to their Material Conditions are something to be desired and to allow new ways of cultural expression to emerge as opposed to soulless Western Individualism. After all, Western Individualism does not grant you Identity but your Society, Society is what grants you and recognizes you as an Identity hence why you seek to commodify yourself and market yourself to others as a type/kind of person.

Nations exist not out of Recognition but because there even is a shared culture which Individualist Capitalism is currently destroying and will continue to destroy the existence of Nations through Globalisation and the assimilation of Culture on towards Individualism as well as the destruction of borders as the Workers cease to have a Nation that they can truly call “home”. Their situation is precarious and are in a constant state of moving and depending on whether their boss calls them to, it is inevitable that it will happen and thus we lose a sense of Nationality.

With the inexistence of Capitalism, Cultures would finally be allowed to revitalise as each Nation is now finally free from the precariousness of Capitalism and Individualism.

Now, could have this not been done through Globalism? Well, no. With the rise of Postmodernity and Interconnectivity, Culture begins to disintegrate and this disintegration eventually leads to sameness as the world adopts a Western Culture centered around the “I”. The “I” in western culture is supreme and in globalisation it is seen as the universal Nomos masqueraded as “Human Rights”. “Human Rights” do not exist, they are made up, we are not entitled to anything and we need Society to exist but Society does not need us. Society creates and shapes who we are as Individuals as we adapt according to our social roles and functions in the greater societal net which in consumer culture and capitalism is slowly being dismantled and replaced by a culture centered around the Individual.

This breaking up of Culture and the Universalisation of the “I” is a necessary component for Capitalism as Capitalism requires the Individual to be a Subject in order to function in order to capture the demands of the Individual to understand and seduce the Subject and to transform us into Slaves whom hunger for Identity. We must break free from Identity in order to become free from Capitalism and hence why my earlier theses focused on these things. Society can indeed impose a Label upon us but that should not matter to us but Individualism makes us care about those labels and we must collect them like pokemon cards.

National and Cultural Identity is not defined, but fluid yet are still unique and we can identify what counts as part of this or that but yet we cannot capture their “essence” for being apart of that culture. National Identity cannot be reduced but rather it is deconstructive and it cannot be simplified to a particular expression of it in a particular time but yet we have a sense of it which is why I am not a Traditionalist but rather a Futurist. I want the continuation of the Spenglerian Civilisational cycle to watch it be accelerated with each passing Generation of Youth as Living is all about killing your old self and bringing into existence the new self. The old self can be revived but does not have to necessarily be, it can be revived in a new body that is better and more suited to our material needs and/or new Values.

These Values are more or less Subjected to change over time and this should not be grounds for a crusade against the New but an embrace of the New. It is not Progressive but Reformed Conservatives, we do not see any form of “Ideal” Values but rather that Values change over time and adapt to each condition. We are Futurists and not Traditionalists as we do not seek any form or Idealised form or expression.

Beyond Civilisation

Civilisation as we have previously discussed is merely a separation of Humanity from nature. A "fall" from the world, a fall from the garden of Eden. Civilisation is the Apple that made us fall from the World and thus this gap must be reconciliated by God becoming apart of Man and bringing the pure to the fallen world as opposed to the gnostic idea of "escape".

This escape is the escape of man into the Digital as the Internet is a haven of worlds that one may escape to as Capitalism further expands the gap between Man and the World furthering his fallenness. Capitalism, as an Individualist force creates. Worlds as we stray more and more from the World. Accelerationism then is the acceleration of this satanic process as Capital encourages the creation on New Worlds that people can find meaning in as Hyperreality takes over Reality.

The Internet then is uniquely Evil in it's current state. The Internet as we know it creates worlds which leads us astray from the Greater Supra-Culture of Civilisation and instead creates Micro-Cultures within the digital realm. This is what capitalism does as we stray farther and farther away from the World. Individualism focuses on the creation of new Subjectivities that are not merely Galaxy clusters within the greater Universe of Civilisation. This then is what we see happening with Postmodernity as Modernity and Pre-Modernity disintegrates which leads me back full circle as Dugin is the Anti-Nick Land as he wishes that Russian Civilisation be not disintegrated into the Multiversalness of Western Individualism.

Bringing of the Divine into the World then is the point of Christianity, the point of Post-Civilisation as Nature and the Technological ceases to have any distinctions. We have seen that Humanity wishes to be distant from the divine as we thirst for the sin of Capital, thus in order for God to reconciliate this fall he must manifest himself into the World. The Sacrifices, the Law of Israel, all of these were foreshadowing Christ. The Sacrifices of Work, Work is done in order to expend Capital to create Commodities to be consumed. The Prophecy of Production is not yet complete as in order to destroy Capital once and for all we must have a perfect sacrifice, a sacrifice that will ultimately break the chains of Capital.

This Sacrifice is the Sacrifice of the Revolutionaries as they dedicate their lives towards fulfilling the Law of the Prophets. Do not think that they had come to abolish Production, but to fulfill it. The Revolutionaries will emancipate the Gentiles into Israel, there is no more Jew or Gentile, only Israel. Many that are stubbornly clinging to the Old Laws, the Opportunists Revisionists who are reflective of so called "Messianic Jews", the Bourgeoisie who are reflective of the Pharisees, all of these are devils hiding within the Covenant of God. The Revolutionaries who sacrifice themselves do so to defeat the Evil of Capital and to mark a new covenant that reconciliates Humanity, the World, and the Divine. The Secularising force of Capital will be destroyed as Myth will once again prevail under Communism as we personify our desubjectivised existences apart of a greater "whole".

Communism then is Post-Civilisation, it is not beyond Civilisation in that it seeks to abolish the Law but to fulfil the Law. Production will be made through a scientific cooperation of nature, the divine, the technological, and humanity as there is no distinction, the New Heavens and New Earth is not a place that is the "final perfect" but rather that it is redeemed but can still be improved upon as we expand and express our existentialities through Culture. God is now among us given that we see God trying to be apart and amongst us as he constantly interacts with us leading up to his physical incarnation in Jesus Christ. It is not a coincidence that Religion and Politics is one and the same and that Communism parallels Christianity onto which we will discuss further as we create a Proletarian Mythology.

Noted, we are NOT Anarchists, we are Communists, we are against Civilisation not because it is Authoritarian or Hierarchical but because it is abolishing the boundaries between Humanity and everything else. It has become superfluous and is the fulfillment of the Evolutionary Strive towards a continuation of Metabolic Production in the form of Civilisation as Civilisation becomes a Eusocial Supra-being.