No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
[[Great British New Left]] - Great British New Left fails to see that the left is very old, and especially this iteration of it. Kautsky? Market Socialism? Advocation for a pliable pseudo-democratic state that will only harden back into the solid crust of authoritarianism due to power tripping? This is not anything but extending modernity indefinitely, "furthering, advancing" all while not realizing how you have the advancements in the first place. Look to Britain in and of itself- where do your resources for technological advancement come from? You may think your technology is expensive now- (which is mostly sign value anyhow) imagine if people didn't die/barely live in the global south or China's state-cap hellstate to attain the resources to make it! You will only feed on those that you despise, all until those you depend on die out due to your own action, or simply run out of that which you desire. Referendum to remove representatives is based though, I guess. (Despite that, I hate democracy as a whole, it's just soft-speaking authoritarianism, and people in power will weasel their way into becoming all-powerful, no matter what you try.)<br> | [[Great British New Left]] - Great British New Left fails to see that the left is very old, and especially this iteration of it. Kautsky? Market Socialism? Advocation for a pliable pseudo-democratic state that will only harden back into the solid crust of authoritarianism due to power tripping? This is not anything but extending modernity indefinitely, "furthering, advancing" all while not realizing how you have the advancements in the first place. Look to Britain in and of itself- where do your resources for technological advancement come from? You may think your technology is expensive now- (which is mostly sign value anyhow) imagine if people didn't die/barely live in the global south or China's state-cap hellstate to attain the resources to make it! You will only feed on those that you despise, all until those you depend on die out due to your own action, or simply run out of that which you desire. Referendum to remove representatives is based though, I guess. (Despite that, I hate democracy as a whole, it's just soft-speaking authoritarianism, and people in power will weasel their way into becoming all-powerful, no matter what you try.)<br> | ||
[[Marijuanarchy]] - I don't really have all that much to critique with you. You see things very similarly to the way I see things, and it's hard because of that to critique you on any scale that matters (not that any of this is creating some new concept, or is "valuable" in my own sense, as little as that means, it's moreso for fun, as all things are for me here.) But, I think the difference is, you see there to be a needed insurrection, whereas I am fully in belief that modernity is its own best poison. The "modern" project will fail, inevitably, and I think that the point of my ideology is simply not to let yourself be governed and occupied by the phantasm of modernity so that when it slips away, you're ready to take advantage of the disruption, and to let yourself flow forth. | [[Marijuanarchy]] - I don't really have all that much to critique with you. You see things very similarly to the way I see things, and it's hard because of that to critique you on any scale that matters (not that any of this is creating some new concept, or is "valuable" in my own sense, as little as that means, it's moreso for fun, as all things are for me here.) But, I think the difference is, you see there to be a needed insurrection, whereas I am fully in belief that modernity is its own best poison. The "modern" project will fail, inevitably, and I think that the point of my ideology is simply not to let yourself be governed and occupied by the phantasm of modernity so that when it slips away, you're ready to take advantage of the disruption, and to let yourself flow forth.<br> | ||
[[Venatrixism]] - (Make your oldest ideology pages redirect to your new page please (or just delete them)) I think your ideology generally mirrors mine, although there are a few aspects I can critique. I think generally associating with zeitgeist ideas, even the simple linguistic stretches of "communism" etc., prevent you from thinking critically about the irrational totality. I'm also reading Meta-Nomad's Exiting Modernity right now, so I can't really talk on z/Acc until I've finished that.. so more on that later, I guess. I suggest you allow yourself to destroy doctrine, and simple avoid modernity and generalized "ideas" of what you believe in order to develop yourself freely, to really let yourself "flow." (Also, I'm writing something you might find intriguing. Give me a minute, and I'll share parts of it.<br> | |||
[[Rocksism]] - I don't think there should be an "economy." May just be me, but I think "economy" is anti-anarchist, as they're simply ''not compatible.'' How are you to structure an anarchist economics? What structure is there? Also maybe avoid using the idea of Alter-Globalism, as it's an inherently East-aligned or generally "communist" global idea, often associated also with ''intergovernmental resistance'' to Globalism. Plus, what is the importance of the stratified "identity" but to cling to comfort and establish what you are- progress as it stands now, and would stand under your "mildly structured anarchy," is simply without merit, and makes you look sort of silly. Why deal in gender? Why deal in race? Is there any necessity to these concepts when you have established the need for working in mutual aid regardless? Also, pretty simply, degrowth is a liberal way to a "green future," one which I feel is impossible to attain using its means, due to the screaming fans of progress, you should look into Post-Civ, even if it doesn't sate your want for environmental effort. Anyways, thank you for letting me critique you, and don't take any of this too too harshly.<br> | |||
Revision as of 23:41, 7 February 2024
Comment if you want me to critique you.
Phill Tchaikovskism - I frankly don't know where to begin with this. I've spoken my bit on Mencius Moldbug, despite thinking he's sometimes insightful to some extent and unimaginably silly, I highly disagree with Neocameralism, and find it remarkably funny that you're even sympathetic to it. I also think "class collaboration" is just soft exploitation, in the same way democracy is just soft-speaking authoritarianism. Anyways, if you have any specifics you'd like me to cover, tell me, and I will.
Brazilian Liberalism - Any form of Liberalism is cancer, simply because it's a system that is painfully inefficient and remarkably impossible to maintain- but at least you're honest! Dengist policy and the doctrines of StateCap are literally just deyaasified liberalism. So congratulations, you're honest.
Gamerism - Here's a little song I wrote
You might want to sing it note for note
Don't worry, be happy
In every life we have some trouble
But when you worry, you make it double
Don't worry, be happy
Don't worry, be happy now
Don't worry
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Be happy
(Ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry, be happy
(Ooh, ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Be happy
(Ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry, be happy
Ain't got no place to lay your head
Somebody came and took your bed
Don't worry, be happy
The landlord say your rent is late
He may have to litigate
Don't worry, be happy (look at me, I'm happy)
Don't worry
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Be happy
(Ooh-ooh-ooh) Hey I give you my phone number
When you worry, call me, I make you happy
(Ooh, ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Be happy
(Ooh-ooh-ooh)
Ain't got no cash, ain't got no style
Ain't got no gal to make you smile
But don't worry, be happy
'Cause when you worry your face will frown
And that will bring everybody down
So don't worry, be happy
Don't worry, be happy now
Don't worry
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Be happy
(Ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry, be happy
(Ooh, ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Be happy
(Ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry, be happy
Now there is this song I wrote
I hope you learned it note for note, like good little children
Dn't worry, be happy
Now listen to what I said, in your life expect some trouble
But when you worry, you make it double
But don't worry, be happy, be happy now
Don't worry
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Be happy
(Ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry, be happy
(Ooh, ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Be happy
(Ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry, be happy
(Ooh, ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) don't worry, don't worry
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't do it, be happy
(Ooh-ooh-ooh) Put a smile in your face, don't bring everybody down like this
(Ooh, ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) Don't worry
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) It will soon pass, whatever it is
(Ooh-ooh-ooh) don't worry, be happy
(Ooh, ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) I'm not worried
(Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh) I'm happy
Romantic Egoism - I don't have much to complain about anymore. I've moved past Marx, and read a lot more of what I kept attributing to my ideology, so I genuinely just agree with you at this point, nearly entirely. The only difference being, of course, that I oppose economics entirely. I think there is no purpose to "labor," so there's no real reason to organize any form of economics at all, and you vouching for a form of post-mutualism is generally my only main critique of you. I oppose religiosity, but I do see a value in animism and pantheism, and I've ultimately considered both myself. I love romanticism, and for forever I was a romanticist, until I dropped it and moved toward more interesting philosophical endeavors. Maybe I was wrong as far as that goes, but there's my critique. At the end of modernity, our "ideologies" will probably manifest in the same sort of ways. (Also you're infinitely better now than you used to be, have plenty of critique towards that.)
Great British New Left - Great British New Left fails to see that the left is very old, and especially this iteration of it. Kautsky? Market Socialism? Advocation for a pliable pseudo-democratic state that will only harden back into the solid crust of authoritarianism due to power tripping? This is not anything but extending modernity indefinitely, "furthering, advancing" all while not realizing how you have the advancements in the first place. Look to Britain in and of itself- where do your resources for technological advancement come from? You may think your technology is expensive now- (which is mostly sign value anyhow) imagine if people didn't die/barely live in the global south or China's state-cap hellstate to attain the resources to make it! You will only feed on those that you despise, all until those you depend on die out due to your own action, or simply run out of that which you desire. Referendum to remove representatives is based though, I guess. (Despite that, I hate democracy as a whole, it's just soft-speaking authoritarianism, and people in power will weasel their way into becoming all-powerful, no matter what you try.)
Marijuanarchy - I don't really have all that much to critique with you. You see things very similarly to the way I see things, and it's hard because of that to critique you on any scale that matters (not that any of this is creating some new concept, or is "valuable" in my own sense, as little as that means, it's moreso for fun, as all things are for me here.) But, I think the difference is, you see there to be a needed insurrection, whereas I am fully in belief that modernity is its own best poison. The "modern" project will fail, inevitably, and I think that the point of my ideology is simply not to let yourself be governed and occupied by the phantasm of modernity so that when it slips away, you're ready to take advantage of the disruption, and to let yourself flow forth.
Venatrixism - (Make your oldest ideology pages redirect to your new page please (or just delete them)) I think your ideology generally mirrors mine, although there are a few aspects I can critique. I think generally associating with zeitgeist ideas, even the simple linguistic stretches of "communism" etc., prevent you from thinking critically about the irrational totality. I'm also reading Meta-Nomad's Exiting Modernity right now, so I can't really talk on z/Acc until I've finished that.. so more on that later, I guess. I suggest you allow yourself to destroy doctrine, and simple avoid modernity and generalized "ideas" of what you believe in order to develop yourself freely, to really let yourself "flow." (Also, I'm writing something you might find intriguing. Give me a minute, and I'll share parts of it.
Rocksism - I don't think there should be an "economy." May just be me, but I think "economy" is anti-anarchist, as they're simply not compatible. How are you to structure an anarchist economics? What structure is there? Also maybe avoid using the idea of Alter-Globalism, as it's an inherently East-aligned or generally "communist" global idea, often associated also with intergovernmental resistance to Globalism. Plus, what is the importance of the stratified "identity" but to cling to comfort and establish what you are- progress as it stands now, and would stand under your "mildly structured anarchy," is simply without merit, and makes you look sort of silly. Why deal in gender? Why deal in race? Is there any necessity to these concepts when you have established the need for working in mutual aid regardless? Also, pretty simply, degrowth is a liberal way to a "green future," one which I feel is impossible to attain using its means, due to the screaming fans of progress, you should look into Post-Civ, even if it doesn't sate your want for environmental effort. Anyways, thank you for letting me critique you, and don't take any of this too too harshly.