Revision as of 04:55, 16 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.

I am an Egoist, Pragmatist, Post-Civilisationist, Iconoclast, and Anti-Humanist.

I am influenced by a variety of schools, most notably by Post-Analytic Philosophy, Psychoanalysis, German Idealism & Romanticism, Political Nihilism, and by various Post-Structuralist thinkers.

Unlike what my influences describe, my thought is grounded not in Political Nihilism nor Egoist/Individualist Anarchism, but rather in a very broad non-anarchist interpretation of anti-civilization and post-civilization philosophy; seeing the state as just another of the same phenomenon which underpins modern civilisation. I see civilisation, the state, capitalism, traditions, or any other contingent historical phenomenon, etc., as neither desirable nor regrettable; they are simply existent, and our relation to such phenomena underpins societal ills.

I see civilisation, capital, culture, ideology, etc., as part of a domesticating process through which individuals find themselves under subjectification. However, this does not create oppression by itself but rather leads to opportunities, social relations, and the possibility of fixity and ideological domination. My response to such domestication is simply the constant renegotiation of individuals, institutions, societies, etc., to themselves and their values through the questioning and revision of values as a form of decadence and pragmatism.

My Icons: (////)

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

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.

Weedium
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Also, please try to improve your writing skills.

Rocksmanylobsters
A collection is not synonymous with collectivism; one is the aggregate of individuals, or merely a multitude of them more so than a total, while the other remains an organisational principle of interests that relate individuals to a supposed shared value. In reality, individuals are connected into a 'collective' through a web of values. Ultimately, if any individual no longer valued what others valued, would you side with the individual or the multitude?

Notes

↑ A collection of figures, including: Joseph de Maistre, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernst Jünger, Oswald Spengler, Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran. And of course more broad Anti-Enlightenment figures such as: Max Stirner, Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, Jean-François Lyotard, Michel Foucault, John Zerzan, Saul Newman.

Comments

LordCompost - Please comment here if you have questions.

- I would appreciate if you used your knowledge to propose philosophers for my iceberg chart
- LordCompost - No, sorry, I have enough on my hands already. But good luck, I guess...

[1] A collection of figures, including: Joseph de Maistre, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernst Jünger, Oswald Spengler, Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran. And of course more broad Anti-Enlightenment figures such as: Max Stirner, Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, Jean-François Lyotard, Michel Foucault, John Zerzan, Saul Newman.

[1]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 [[File:Gay.png]] [[:Category:LGBT|Queer]]<br>
 |influences=
-*[[File:EgoNihil.png]] '''[[Anarcho-Egoism|Egoism]]'''
+*[[File:Anticiv.png]] '''[[phil:Anti-Civilization|Anti-Civilization]]'''
+*[[File:Antwork.png]] '''[[w:Critique of work|Anti-Work]]'''
+*[[File:CountEn.png]] '''[[Counter-Enlightenment|Counter Enlightenment]]'''<ref>A collection of figures, including: [[File:Joseph-Marie.png]] Joseph de Maistre, [[File:Nietzsche alt.png]] Friedrich Nietzsche, [[File:Junger.png]] Ernst Jünger, [[File:PrusSoc.png]] Oswald Spengler, [[File:Superfash.png]] Julius Evola, [[File:Theocrat.png]] Mircea Eliade, [[File:Cioran.png]] Emil Cioran. And of course more broad Anti-Enlightenment figures such as: [[File:Stirner.png]] Max Stirner, [[File:Freud.png]] Sigmund Freud, [[File:Lacan.png]] Jacques Lacan, [[File:Barthes.png]] Roland Barthes, [[File:Lyotard.png]] Jean-François Lyotard, [[File:Foucault.png]] Michel Foucault, [[File:Zerzan.png]] John Zerzan, [[File:Newman.png]] Saul Newman.</ref>
 *[[File:Pragmat.png]] '''[[phil:Pragmatism|Pragmatism]]'''
-*[[File:Philan.png]] '''[[Philosophical Anarchism|Philosophical Anarchism]]'''
 *[[File:Postciv.png]] '''[[phil:Post-Civilisationism|Post-Civilisationism]]'''
+*[[File:PostHegel.png]] '''[[phil:Hegelianism|Post-Hegelianism]]'''
 *[[File:Poststruct.png]] '''[[phil:Post-Structuralism|Post-Structuralism]]'''
+*[[File:Freud.png]] '''[[phil:Freudianism|Psychoanalysis]]'''
 |likes=
 *[[File:Self.png]] [[phil:Stirnernism|Uniqueness]]
@@ Line 80: / Line 83: @@
 I am an [[File:Anego.png]] Egoist, [[File:Pragmat.png]] Pragmatist, [[File:Postciv.png]] Post-Civilisationist, [[File:AntiTheism.png]] Iconoclast, and [[File:Anti-Humanism.png]] Anti-Humanist.
-I am influenced by a variety of schools, most notably by [[File:Postanalytic.png]] Post-Analytic Philosophy, [[File:Freud.png]] Psychoanalysis, [[File:IdealismPhil.png]] German Idealism, [[File:PolNil.png]] Political Nihilism, and by various [[File:Poststruct.png]] Post-Structuralist thinkers.
+I am influenced by a variety of schools, most notably by [[File:Postanalytic.png]] Post-Analytic Philosophy, [[File:Freud.png]] Psychoanalysis, German [[File:IdealismPhil.png]] Idealism & [[File:RomanticismAlt.png]] Romanticism, [[File:PolNil.png]] Political Nihilism, and by various [[File:Poststruct.png]] Post-Structuralist thinkers.
-Unlike what my influences describe, my thought is grounded not in [[File:PolNil.png]] [[phil:Political Nihilism|Political Nihilism]] nor [[File:AnindnoI.png]] [[Anarcho-Individualism|Egoist/Individualist Anarchism]], but rather in a very broad [[File:Philan.png]] [[Philosophical Anarchism|philosophically anarchist]]<ref>Merely the closest, or most accurate description of my position towards politics; there is no political obligation to the state.</ref> interpretation of [[File:Anticiv.png]] [[phil:Anti-Civilization|anti-civilization]] and [[File:Postciv.png]] [[phil:Post-Civilization|post-civilization]] philosophy; seeing the state as just another of the same phenomenon which underpins modern civilisation. I see [[File:Krit.png]] [[Communitarianism|civilisation]], [[File:Sec.png]] [[Authoritarianism|the state]], [[File:Cap.png]] [[Capitalism|capitalism]], [[File:Trad.png]] [[Traditionalism|traditions]], or any other [[File:HistPhil.png]] [[phil:Historicism|contingent historical phenomenon]], etc., as neither desirable nor regrettable; they are simply existent, and our relation to such phenomena underpins societal ills.
+Unlike what my influences describe, my thought is grounded not in [[File:PolNil.png]] [[phil:Political Nihilism|Political Nihilism]] nor [[File:AnindnoI.png]] [[Anarcho-Individualism|Egoist/Individualist Anarchism]], but rather in a very broad [[File:AntiAnarchy.png]] [[Authoritarianism|non-anarchist]] interpretation of [[File:Anticiv.png]] [[phil:Anti-Civilization|anti-civilization]] and [[File:Postciv.png]] [[phil:Post-Civilization|post-civilization]] philosophy; seeing the state as just another of the same phenomenon which underpins modern civilisation. I see [[File:Krit.png]] [[Communitarianism|civilisation]], [[File:Sec.png]] [[Authoritarianism|the state]], [[File:Cap.png]] [[Capitalism|capitalism]], [[File:Trad.png]] [[Traditionalism|traditions]], or any other [[File:HistPhil.png]] [[phil:Historicism|contingent historical phenomenon]], etc., as neither desirable nor regrettable; they are simply existent, and our relation to such phenomena underpins societal ills.
 I see civilisation, capital, culture, ideology, etc., as part of a domesticating process through which individuals find themselves under subjectification. However, this does not create oppression by itself but rather leads to opportunities, social relations, and the possibility of fixity and ideological domination. My response to such domestication is simply the constant renegotiation of [[File:Indiv.png]] [[phil:Individualism|individuals]], [[File:Struct.png]] [[phil:Structuralism|institutions]], [[File:Social.png]] [[phil:Social_Orgamism|societies]], etc., to themselves and their values through the questioning and revision of values as a form of [[File:Postciv.png]] [[Ultraprogressivism|decadence]] and [[File:Pragmat.png]] [[phil:Pragmatism|pragmatism]].
-My Icons: ([[File:Postciv.png]]/[[File:Philan.png]]/[[File:Pragmat.png]])
+My Icons: ([[File:Postciv.png]]/[[File:Antwork.png]]/[[File:CountEn.png]]/[[File:Pragmat.png]]/[[File:PostHegel.png]])
 = Summary =
 See my '''[[phil:UserWiki:LordCompost86|Philosophy]]''' page.
-= Theory =
-<big>[[File:Philan.png]] ''' [[Philosophical Anarchism|Philosophical Anarchism]]'''</big><br><br>
-While I do not think that any individual has an [[File:Thar.png]] obligation towards the state, I do not see it as evil inherently, and I certainly do not entertain its abolition as a cause worth pursuing; the state is merely one entity among many that demands that you take up its cause as your own. Whether you do or do not is up to you. However, even this position is entirely name only and relates to much more than just the state, including social relations, the economy, social norms, etc.
-However, neither do I entertain the thought that the state will ever [[File:Marx.png]] wither away. Even a [[File:AntiConsti.png]] non-constitutional, [[File:Directdem.png]] direct democratic, [[File:Republicanismpix.png]] republican state, that autonomously and freely legislated according to a [[File:Rousseau.png]] consensual popular collective will, would never [[File:Godwin.png]] perfect the population, nor [[File:Fichteanism.png]] make itself superfluous. It would remain stuck within [[File:Mach.png]] politics itself and never be able to transcend this discourse.
-In saying that, such a [[File:Sec.png]] state, if entirely [[File:SCT.png]] directly consensual by each individual, would in principle be a justifiable state, allowing, of course, for [[File:Sep.png]] individual succession and the elimination of [[File:Mediastocracy flair.png]] manufactured consent or [[File:Ingsocf.png]] ideology; however, such a state would also in principle be almost impossible, and certainly extremely limited in application.
-<br><big>[[File:PolNil.png]] '''Political Nihilism'''</big><br><br>
-While I am no direct opponent of the state, I am rather an enemy of the [[File:Radape.png]] discourse of politics; however, because I neither oppose merely the 'present' state of things nor care for the glorification of the negation itself, I hardly see myself as a [[File:PolNil.png]] political nihilist.
-The negation or the [[File:Violannil.png]] love of violence, [[File:Insarch.png]] insurrection, or [[File:Revolution.png]] revolt marks a theory as politically nihilist; this is why [[File:Marx.png]] Orthodox Marxism may have nihilist outcomes, but it is not nihilist in intent. Similarly, the [[File:RussianNil.png]] Russian Nihilists, or even [[File:Nazi.png]] Nazi Germany, with their glorification of war and destruction of the old order, would mark these as nihilists. Because I value myself and my outcome, I do not care for the negation; I may merely use it as a tool.
-<br><big>[[File:Feud.png]] '''On Capital and Communes'''</big><br><br>
-Let us look at [[File:Feud.png]] feudalism. Does it not have the owners, the lords, whereby the [[File:Monarch.png]] King owned the land and bestowed it upon lords for a return? The [[File:Lumpenproletariat.png]] paupers, the [[File:Soc-h.png]] serfs, and [[File:Indiv.png]] individuals could, in turn, only have mere possession of the land and utilise it to make a living, but they could never own it. Only the powers above could lend it to you, but just as quickly they can take it away, you have it because they let you.
-Under [[File:Cap.png]] capitalism, we only possess property through the state's permission. You have to be promised property; you are afforded to be a lord of the state if you give in return to the state, pay your taxes, uphold the law, etc. As a worker, you have no capital; you merely get to work on the land of others and be in possession of their property to make a living. Even those [[File:Lfree.png]] free-market capitalists who openly cry out for [[File:Polylaw.png]] private defence agencies would simply move from being lords to the King (state) to be serfs of the lords (defence agencies) because only through them would you have possession of your property.
-And yet, what is the solution to [[File:Commie.png]] abolish private ownership (as if such a thing existed) and uphold a system of pure possession, pure serfdom? Yes, perhaps [[File:Hayek.png]] Hayek was correct when he spoke of the road to serfdom, but he failed to realise [[File:Cap.png]] capitalism was also a destination on this desolation row. Socialism cares about the social society; when no one has property, everyone will; what nonsense. Yes, everywhere you will hear from [[File:Socan2.png]] anarchists to [[File:Marx.png]] Marxists that they do not wish to remove ownership of personal affections; only the possession remains. Only if the community allows it do you have anything, always a dependent little serf on the land of your betters.
-Any economic system always has to have owners and possessors (lords and serfs). Will you choose the King and the Lords, The State and the Courts, or the Community and the Workplaces?
-'''W.I.P'''
 = Writings =
@@ Line 126: / Line 104: @@
 [[File:PolNil.png]] '''[https://open.substack.com/pub/lordcompost86/p/on-the-issue-of-negation-wip?r=1psjwe&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web| On the Issue of Negation]'''<br><br>
-[[File:Thar.png]] '''[https://open.substack.com/pub/lordcompost86/p/political-obligation?r=1psjwe&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web| Political Obligation]'''<br><br>
 [[File:Totalitarian.png]] '''[https://open.substack.com/pub/lordcompost86/p/totality-and-autonomy?r=1psjwe&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web| Totality and Autonomy]'''<br><br>

Ultroneism: Difference between revisions

Help