Revision as of 07:29, 12 January 2024

Self Insert
"People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism

This page is meant to represent LordCompost's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.

‟Through the heaven of civilization, the human being seeks to isolate himself from the world, to break its hostile power.”
– The Unique and Its Property, Max Stirner

Howdy, I'm LordCompost.

TL:DR, I believe that [insert issue here] is simply due to our servile and religious relation towards [said issue] treating it as sacred, necessary, unquestionable, etc., - Instead I see these [issues] as merely transitory, revisable, pragmatic, and contingent phenomena which individuals, groups, or even 'societies' are able to "freely" transform.

Writings

Links to my Substack.

The Shears of “Civilization”

The "Origin" of Civilisation

On the Issue of Negation

Political Obligation

Totality and Autonomy

Relations

CarrotsRppl2
How is 'The State and Its Property' illegitimate? If you truly held to the principle that property is individual protection, then isn't the state currently the most powerful entity that protects its property? As such, according to you, it is your perfect society already.

Bourgeoisie Destroyer
I am sure you have read something, but merely returning and subscribing to 'ancient' philosophy does not make one intelligent, nor does it advance any knowledge or let one overcome modern problems simply because thought has developed and overcome older philosophy.

Killer Kitty
Question: Why are Brazillian's superior? If politics was a net negative on your country would you overcome it and bring politics into its nullity? Or would you hold close to it and always remain bound to your highest truth? 'No,' you would say, 'politics cannot be done away with; it is necessary, it is fundamental, it is more important than us.'

Kosciuszkovagr
No writings...

Xx godisfaithful xx
He doesn't like postmodern anarchism simply because it critiques more than just the state: self-domination and external domination due to morality, religion, culture, etc., are even more pernicious and oppressive than just the state. Additionally, they think they have finally solved the riddle of epistemology and postmodernity; it is merely the reification of subjective, practical thought.

Notes

Comments

LordCompost - Please comment below if you have questions.

Amism - Killer Kitty changed his self insert to... whatever this is.
- LordCompost - Thanks; I mean, there is not much difference in terms of ideals, just extremely racist now, I guess?
  - Amism - Pretty much, yeah.

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 = Relations =
 [[File:CarrotReich-ICON.png]] [[Thompsonian Anarchism|{{Color|#03ffd9|'''CarrotsRppl2'''}}]]<br>
-How is 'The State and Its Property' illegitimate? If you truly held to the principle that property is individual protection, then isn't the state currently the most powerful entity that protects its property? How can one have a possessionist account of property and then argue that it is held in common? Do you not simply mean you oppose the accumulation of property, not its private ownership? You also oppose monopolies, again, what governs whether I hold onto my property through my own force or I utilise others to hold that property; if an individual became a monopoly and held onto their property through force, then no lesser force could overcome it, and it would be justified. This is the state currently. All those within the state also have the property in common. As such, according to you, it is your perfect society already.
+How is 'The State and Its Property' illegitimate? If you truly held to the principle that property is individual protection, then isn't the state currently the most powerful entity that protects its property? As such, according to you, it is your perfect society already.
 [[File:NewBDIcon.png]] [[Proletariat Builderism|{{Color|#018001|'''Bourgeoisie Destroyer'''}}]]<br>
-"For logic, I agree with the traditional stoic logic of Chrysippus." - Do you now? Really? So, fragmented sentences of propositional logic? I am sure you have read something, but merely returning and subscribing to 'ancient' philosophy does not make one intelligent, nor does it advance any knowledge or let one overcome modern problems simply because thought has developed and overcome older philosophy. Virtues, and especially Plotinus' conception, introduces a split into an essential and non-essential self based on what he perceives to be essential to humanity; that is, the consciousness or awareness of bodily effects, thus, thinking. He then identifies the self solely with this aspect, ignoring its origin in bodily awareness, holding self-contempt for the rest of the self. You end up hating half of yourself because it somehow isn't you. You somehow also like Merleau-Ponty who argues that the body is integral to perception; this would ruin your Plotinian conception of soul and body.
+I am sure you have read something, but merely returning and subscribing to 'ancient' philosophy does not make one intelligent, nor does it advance any knowledge or let one overcome modern problems simply because thought has developed and overcome older philosophy.
 [[File:NatBrazlib.png]] [[Neo-Killer Kittyism|{{Color|#1d5e1a|'''Killer Kitty'''}}]]<br>
-Question: Why are Brazillian's superior? Stuck in the heaven of politics. You may think you have found the 'best' solution to all your country's ills. But, that relies upon staying within the fixed idea or necessary phenomenon of a) countries and b) politics. If politics was a net negative on your country would you overcome it and bring politics into its nullity? Or would you hold close to it and always remain bound to your highest truth? 'No,' you would say, 'politics cannot be done away with; it is necessary, it is fundamental, it is more important than us.' And wouldn't we all have to accept it is true, or else we be cast off as sinners against this great revelation? Always the individual must answer to their 'cause' first; the alien community comes first; it is allowed to care only for itself using individuals as means, but if I did the same, I would be labelled an egoist.
+Question: Why are Brazillian's superior? If politics was a net negative on your country would you overcome it and bring politics into its nullity? Or would you hold close to it and always remain bound to your highest truth? 'No,' you would say, 'politics cannot be done away with; it is necessary, it is fundamental, it is more important than us.'
 [[File:Hoodism.png]] [[Hoodism|{{Color|#800000|'''Kosciuszkovagr'''}}]]<br>
+No writings...
 [[File:mfaicon.png]] [[Mindform Anarchism|{{Color|#BDF1FF|'''Xx godisfaithful xx'''}}]]<br>
+He doesn't like postmodern anarchism simply because it critiques more than just the state: self-domination and external domination due to morality, religion, culture, etc., are even more pernicious and oppressive than just the state. Additionally, they think they have finally solved the riddle of epistemology and postmodernity; it is merely the reification of subjective, practical thought.
 =Notes=

Ultroneism: Difference between revisions

Help

Revision as of 07:29, 12 January 2024

Contents

Writings

Relations

Notes

Comments

Recent changes