| Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
Poor argumentation and viewpoints. | Poor argumentation and viewpoints. | ||
*[[File:DarkAstrodisc.png]] [[Voidvill Rajandeep]] - I'm sorry but this is pure larp. You can't agree on both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche on the tragedy, as they have opposing views on the matter. Fumiko never talked about morality. You misunderstand Camus' absurdism so badly it's absurd (you can take this as a joke or not I don't care), philosophical rebellion against the absurd isn't negation. You put a dichotomy between nature and man when that's what biomechanicalism - at least in my view - tries to surpass. You can't like both Camus and Mainländer. You completely misunderstand Floofel's ''Burn Everything Beautiful in the World'' section. And there's no way you think Columbine and the Holocaust were necessary that's fucked up. | *[[File:DarkAstrodisc.png]] [[Voidvill Rajandeep]] - I'm sorry but this is pure larp. You can't agree on both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche on the tragedy, as they have opposing views on the matter. Fumiko never talked about morality. You misunderstand Camus' absurdism so badly it's absurd (you can take this as a joke or not I don't care), philosophical rebellion against the absurd isn't negation. You put a dichotomy between nature and man when that's what biomechanicalism - at least in my view - tries to surpass. You can't like both Camus and Mainländer. You completely misunderstand Floofel's ''Burn Everything Beautiful in the World'' section. And there's no way you think Columbine and the Holocaust were necessary that's fucked up. | ||
**[[File:DarkAstrodisc.png]] - I must apologize for inaccuracy as most philosophers I have not read but have gotten there ideas from youtubers, academic or eh, Mainlander influenced my thought from video sources I watched of his thought, along | **[[File:DarkAstrodisc.png]] - I must apologize for inaccuracy as most philosophers I have not read but have gotten there ideas from youtubers, academic or eh, Mainlander influenced my thought from video sources I watched of his thought, along with Camus, the video explaining absurdism for me was a comedic and very hilarious one, so that could be why I may not understand it properly, I will read Camus after I read the multiple anarchist thought in a tab, I have forgotten most of Schopenhauer's views on the tragedy since I watched a rather long ago, so I may have to change, that, also, my Floofel (R.I.P.) section is not finished and may be removed, most of what I know of Nietzsche is from Jonas Ceika | ||
=== {{Color|404040|The Outcasts}} === | === {{Color|404040|The Outcasts}} === | ||
Revision as of 03:33, 10 November 2023
Yeah so this is my self-insert, I am 
Modular, a mythological deity writing about my own opinions about the world in my free time. I like 
Heraclitus, 
Gorgias, 
Machiavelli, 
Nietzsche, 
Saint-Point, 
Faye, 
Land, and some other people I probably forgot. Some of my interests are 
philosophy, 
politics, 
theology, 
sociology, 
psychology, 
future studies, and 
science, though I also like learning about other stuff. Oh and I like 
duels, of course I like duels. And brownies. I love brownies. I also want more 
lesbian 
aristocrats.
Don't expect the page to ever be finished.
Beliefs
The National Question 
Analysis
Nationalism, understood as celebrating one's nation, has enormous problems. The age of nations can be described as over or in decline, deeply modernist and opposed to the idea of the medieval feudal state; however, the idea of the nation has certainly not disappeared, though it is in crisis. This can be easily seen from the fact that, similarly to a religious schism, there are different definitions for the "nation," and debates about which of these is the "correct" one are not few. Some argue that the nation is established by membership in a specific ethnic group (ethnic nationalism) or race (racial nationalism), by the language spoken (linguistic nationalism), by citizenship (civic or liberal nationalism), by religion (religious nationalism), by culture (cultural nationalism), and so on. This confusion dictated by modern decadence can be regarded as a popular delusion. However, unlike what many in the West think, nationalism is not to be discarded completely; it can and should be used with clear critiques in mind so that we can learn from our past mistakes. The problem lies in viewing globalization and the exaltation of the nation as antagonists and opposites of a dialectic, with globalization as the only outcome; instead, I believe the two can go hand in hand. What I consider irreconcilable is cosmopolitanism with any nationalistic sentiment. The former is the cause of the nation's collapse and decay, and vice versa. I first want to state that I regard racial and ethnic nationalism as essentialist Platonic diseases and synonymous with pure ignorance; we attack race but not ethnicity, and that causes the delusion of race to either be a more radical synonym for ethnicity or an ethno-delusion. Ethnicity is a huge fraud on which most ordinary people fall; identity will never be found in ethnicity as it would be a pure illusion. The concept of ethnicity, so much studied by science - the hypocritical science - is something that should be attacked relentlessly and made disappear from the minds of ordinary people. Dear Plato, how much better would the world be without your essentialism and idealism? There is no ethnicity, only subtleties added together and artificial groups of all different people bound by anything but this, as we now can trust people different from us. Even the state and citizenship, being artificial concepts, cannot be at the basis of a nation and a common identity. What divides man is the way of doing things. Harmony and stability can exist if one has the same way of doing things. The same customs, the same culture. It is for this reason that I call myself a cultural nationalist; we are divided by our culture. Skin color and somatic features are of no importance.
Solution
WIP
A ruthless criticism of all that I don't like
This is all objectively correct. 
Humanism
Paternalism
Socialism
Utilitarianism
Antinatalism
Efilism
Asceticism
Christianity
Franciscans
Reactionaryism
Traditionalism
Conservatism
Progressivism
Primitivism
Fascism
Aphorisms
- I intend to desecrate the Human. Not enough have I done yet, nor will I ever do, but I don't need to: the future will do it for me.
- The Human is dead, and so is God. Leave Modernity's fallen glory to the coward, for I proclaim the beginning of a new aeon.
- The Orbs do not care about the binary, for conflict makes harmony. Man's obliviousness made him blind, and the true embracer is cast off.
- The quest for the holy grail of man's essence is yet to have a conclusion, though the conclusion is chimeric.
- To have a word with God is to wrangle with man.
- The illusory is real, as reality is the illusory.
- Cowardice is the ethos of the late-modern man.
- What does not overcome itself decays.
- The conservative is purblind, the traditionalist recidivist.
- There is no need for the delirium of race if there is that of ethnicity.
- The one with no enemies is one of no substance.
- "Everyone is blind but me" is the saying of both the enlightened and the fool.
- My essence is waging a relentless war against all essences.
- Beneath the conservative there is only cowardice.
Relations
The Masters
People I like and pretty much agree with.
The Warriors
Not bad, worthy of some criticism.
The Blessed
Disagreeable but respectable.
Neo-Anthony Bax Thought - I appreciate your nationalistic sentiments and I think you explain them well, though yours is a profoundly modernist type of nationalism which I don't like. Your philosophy is interesting and respectable, even if I do have some criticism (moral nihilism not being one of those). Your economical views are the worst thing on your page, mainly because I dislike socialism and I consider it to be outdated and not a viable alternative to capitalism anymore, but also because of your definition of it (dirigisme is not socialism what are you talking about). I think your argument against suicide (based on Camus' absurdism) is weak and can be addressed best with a Nietzschean viewpoint. Overall I think your thought is quite sound, especially if we compare it with other people's arguments.
The Sorcerers
Too different from my views.
The Humble
Poor argumentation and viewpoints.
Voidvill Rajandeep - I'm sorry but this is pure larp. You can't agree on both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche on the tragedy, as they have opposing views on the matter. Fumiko never talked about morality. You misunderstand Camus' absurdism so badly it's absurd (you can take this as a joke or not I don't care), philosophical rebellion against the absurd isn't negation. You put a dichotomy between nature and man when that's what biomechanicalism - at least in my view - tries to surpass. You can't like both Camus and Mainländer. You completely misunderstand Floofel's Burn Everything Beautiful in the World section. And there's no way you think Columbine and the Holocaust were necessary that's fucked up.
- - I must apologize for inaccuracy as most philosophers I have not read but have gotten there ideas from youtubers, academic or eh, Mainlander influenced my thought from video sources I watched of his thought, along with Camus, the video explaining absurdism for me was a comedic and very hilarious one, so that could be why I may not understand it properly, I will read Camus after I read the multiple anarchist thought in a tab, I have forgotten most of Schopenhauer's views on the tragedy since I watched a rather long ago, so I may have to change, that, also, my Floofel (R.I.P.) section is not finished and may be removed, most of what I know of Nietzsche is from Jonas Ceika
The Outcasts
The worst of the worst.
Add List
Add yourself at the bottom if you wish to be added.
Rigby Thought
Necro-Anarchism
Proletariat Builderism
Agricoetism
Vistulism
Brazilian Liberalism- Venatrixism
