Ultroneism

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.

Ultroneism
Art by Hysteria.
Basic Information
Aliases	Add your own if you so desire Anarcho-Uism Epitome of post-hegelian dissonance ok i changed my mind, pseud ass Architect of Word
Alignments	Lib Unity Culturally Far-Left Anarchists Individualists Nihilists Queer
Ideological Influences
Influenced by	Anti-Civilization Anti-Work Counter Enlightenment Pragmatism Post-Civilisationism Post-Hegelianism Post-Structuralism Psychoanalysis
Character Information
Likes	Uniqueness Appropriation Negation Decadence Usefulness
Dislikes	Essence Shift Collection Fixity Hypostasis

‟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

On Decline in Relation to Decadence

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?

Weedman

Comments

LordCompost - Please comment here if you have questions.

• - Opinion on Redbeard?
  • - He said it before on discord I think, that being he would be based if he wasn’t sexist and racist
  • LordCompost - He takes a truism, 'winner's win' (or 'might is right') and takes it to very strange places. Also, yes, I don't understand his opposition to collectivism and then his support for collectivist arguments in the form of sexism, racism, etc. In saying that, if a group of people utilise power to spread racism and succeed, well, then they have won. But that is still inconsistent with his support for individualism.