Revision as of 08:30, 14 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.

Summary

See my Philosophy page.

Writings

Links to my Substack.

The Shears of “Civilization”

The "Origin" of Civilisation

The Cultural Industrial Complex

On the Issue of Negation

Political Obligation

Totality and Autonomy

Postmodern Paganism

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: 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.' Liberalism, Fascism? Politics...

Kosciuszkovagr
No writings...

Xx godisfaithful xx
Your similarity to postmodern/post-anarchism with your rejection of an 'Arche' or grounding principle is fascinating. This is why I am surprised you disagree with postmodernism so much. However, in your thought, I find the assurance of human rights to be the primary ground of politics; it seems to be a slight contradiction?

HysteriaThought
It is quite strange that through all your insights and some I agree with quite earnestly, post-rationalism is a particular favourite; one then runs into your quite tame and sacred economics. Economic freedom is the same as 'religious freedom' - not freedom from the economy, but the freedom of the economy.

Anthony Bax
I am still yet to understand the existence of altruistic egoism. Where does Stirner oppose altruism? When egoists are social, supportive, associative, etc., why does this entail the conclusion that sharing is a moral ought, and that collectivisation is a sacred duty? It is alien to my will, something that can always be separated from the social ego.

StockMarketCrash
I appreciate the critique of capitalism; I, too, agree that it is a stifle of individuality and creativity. However, I do not support socialism for the same reasons. Additionally, anarchy, even as expression or lifestyle, is still a mode for me to exist within; why can I not act freely and have a me-ism? Why label it and put rules on what I can and can't do; if I idly protested and violently resisted at other times, shall I be shunned as false to the cause?

Borker
Who is the nation existing for? If it is for the nation, then it can do its own work to benefit itself; if it is for the people of that nation, then why are we supporting the nation and not the people? Additionally, if it is voluntary whether people identify with that nation, then it can hardly be said to be a universal shared value. If individuals stop identifying, they can hardly be said to oppose the nation's interests because they no longer accept the nation itself.

Notes

Comments

LordCompost - Please comment here if you have questions.

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 = Comments =
 {{LordCompost}} - Please comment here if you have questions.<br>
-*[[File:Weedium.png]] - Why do you like appropriation?
-**{{LordCompost}} - It is merely the egoistic, or 'might' based version of property; "If he appropriates it, then not only the earth, but also the right to it, belongs to him. This is ''egoistic right'', i.e., it is right for me, therefore it is right." Whatever is in your power (not Nietzschean, but merely capability); i.e., if you can do it, exert yourself.
-***What a luck that this can result in nothing but efficient power management, i.e. neocameralism - [[File:Qacc.png]] [[User:Quark|Quark]]
-****{{LordCompost}} - Sure, if I or Stirner cared about efficiency, management, corporations, shareholders, private property, etc.
-*****The personal opinions of Stirner/stirnerites is irrelevant, property is nothing but a formalized power relation, enabling higher levels of predictability, thus a tighter relation with the future, thus greater profit, generating even more power, thus more property, etc. To recognize property as a contingent, historical, arbitrary consequence (Rather than a matter of "morality" or "nature" for example) ought to bring the conclusion that property is just that, the logical product of the existence of power in this universe, as darwinian pressures reduce or eliminate the presence of non-optimized power structures. Whether you individually like property or not does not matter, those who don't grow lag behind - [[File:Qacc.png]] [[User:Quark|Quark]]
-******{{LordCompost}} - "The personal opinions of Stirner/Stirnites are* irrelevant; property is nothing but a formalized power relation, enabling higher levels of predictability, thus a tighter relation with the future, thus greater profit, generating even more power, thus more property, etc." Seems highly relevant to me, simply by the fact that it disagrees with your assumptions. The formalisation itself is a different power relation to property; it is based on the self-domination of individuals holding property and right to said property as sacred. Predictability and the relation to the future are fine if one cares for the outcome of greater profit and production, not more power; there can't be more power because it is simply capability. The dying man exerts himself fully, just as the bee can do no more than it already does; you can't generate more of it. <br><br> "To recognize property as a contingent, historical, arbitrary consequence (Rather than a matter of "morality" or "nature", for example) ought to bring the conclusion that property is just that, the logical product of the existence of power in this universe, as Darwinian pressures reduce or eliminate the presence of non-optimized power structures." Sure, but so too is a reaction against it; progress and reaction come into being simultaneously. Only when a reaction begins can something come into its own and become itself fully. Moreover, if such a Darwinian process is penultimate, then surely it is to recognize its transience as well. If I do not care for 'established' fixed property, then so too can others. Besides, simply reducing history to contingency does not reduce it to determinism. If power, or capability, expressed itself in terms of ideology, which led to capitalism, then it simply makes no sense to say that it is a) logical (simply because it can never become illogical; it is only working its way towards continued existence) and b) an elimination of non-optimized power. Simply because power cannot be optimized (it is already fully optimized), thus any reaction against it is just as valid as its existence; no one can 'lag behind'. That would simply be to side with a side and then decide it is necessary while the other is regression.
 {{#css:
 .cs-comments{display:none;}
 }}

Ultroneism: Difference between revisions

Help