No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
[[File:ZeroAcc.png]] Zero Accelerationism | [[File:ZeroAcc.png]] Zero Accelerationism | ||
|preceded = [[File:Ancapf.png]] Avthentic Schvmacherian Theory,,.., | |||
|succeeded = | |||
<small> | |||
[[File:TIIKKET12png.png]] [[Neo-Libertarianism|Pre-Schumacherianism]]<br> | |||
[[File:TIIKKET13.png]] [[Minarchism|Proto-Schumacherianism]]<br> | |||
[[File:Pre-TIIKKET.png]] [[Neoluddism|TIIKKETMASTER thought]]<br> | |||
[[File:Ultraproto-TIIKKET.png]] [[Eco-Fascism|Pre-TIIKKETMASTER thought]]<br> | |||
[[File:Pre-Pre-TIIKKET.png]] [[Anarcho-Primitivism|Proto-TIIKKETMASTER thought]]<br> | |||
</small> | |||
|likes = | |likes = | ||
Latest revision as of 07:52, 12 November 2024
 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent TIIKKETMASTER's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission. |
tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable."-
Theodore Kaczynski, Industrial Society and Its Future - Control Of Human Behavior, para. 145...and thus it happens that when the miseries of the poor are dilated upon, they are thought of as the miseries of the 
deserving poor, instead of being thought of as the miseries of the 
undeserving poor... none of them are thought of as bearing the penalties of their misdeeds... They are simply 
good-for-nothings, who in one way or other live on the 
good-for-somethings - vagrants and sots, criminals, youths who are burdens on hard-worked parents."
-
Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus The State - II. The Coming Slavery, pg. 22"Economics is not about goods and services, it is about the actions of living men. Its goal is not to dwell upon imaginary constructions such as equilibrium. These constructions are only tools of reasoning. The sole task of economics is 
analysis of the actions of men, is the analysis of processes."
-
Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action - Chapter 18: Indirect Exchange, pg. 354
Schumacherianism is a slightly off-compass right, libertarian, and very culturally and socially progressive ideology. It emphasizes these main points:
- The abolition of all forms of compulsory cooperation
- The abolition of all forms of social welfare that seeks to keep individuals alive artificially
- The abolition of all forms of collective cultural norms and traditions
It uses Kaczynskist and Spencerist theory to prove the true reality of statist theory: that the attempt to regulate all actions of a community by legislation will entail little else but misery and compulsion.
If you want to add me, use my icon template here:
{{SchumaIcons}}
Which will look like this: 
Schumacherianism
(/
/
/
/
)
Overview:
User Relations:
Darwinism
Actual HumanismSocial Darwinism is the belief of human will, that is, the hyper-stratification of individuals based upon their assumed will. Naturally, humans that seek to do something with themselves will attempt and succeed, and those that do not wish to assume their will must die. To make room for the strong-willed and to detatch the weak-willed parasites from their hosts.
In essence, I argue against any form of welfare. I oppose this for many reasons. One of the most prominent is that it is inhumane. Those who live off of welfare live in an artificial state of life, that is, they do not contribute to the means as to how their needs are met. Take someone living off life support for a large amount of time, for example. They live in an artificial state of life in which they do not and they cannot contribute any labor to the means of their survival, and wasting away themselves and the resources wasted to keep them alive until they die. Now compare this person to a terminally ill dog. This dog, mostly living off of drugs and other artificial support, is not energetic enough to sustain its own being. Most would argue that the dog should rather be put down, in order to end the suffering of this being. So, why put down the dog, but not the human? I explain more about this argument in the 
deep ecology section.
Austrian School
AustrolibertarianismThe biggest divide, I feel, between the economic theories is the proposition of the extent that humanism is found within the economy. Whereas socialists see that the economy and market forces are/should be driven by human empathy (hence why we can see their drive is to better humanity as a whole). Hayekists and Landians see the market forces as totally static and devoid of any human emotion, citing the belief of cybernetic capital theories. I, however, take solely from the Austrian School economic theory. That is, the belief that the economy is ran behind praxeological theorism. The belief that economic and market forces are driven by human needs and wants. I take a step further, citing from the Buddhist thought of Duḥkha, the true nature of all existence. The doctrine states suffering as the nature of all existence, and I use this said doctrine as a methodology to prove the Austrian School economic theory. That is, the belief that suffering exists at all times, and economic and market forces are driven by the natural tendency to mitigate individual suffering.
Ruralism
AgrarianismI get most of my beliefs from Ted Kaczynski, although I moved away from 
Orthodox Kaczynskism as I didn't see the entire techno-industrial system as sole fault for what Kaczynski explains, but rather the effect of urbanism. That is, the population increase and how we dealt with it. We chose to deal with overpopulation through the use of urbanism, which as a result led to the increase of the population due to urbanism not only putting off the problem for future generations but also making the problem worse. I argue that Kaczynski’s problem was never with the Industrial Revolution, but instead of the urbanism that resulted in it. In the urban society, only then are we subject to slavery by technology only because the ways of how we naturally survived are gone, and then we rely on technology to get us even our bare necessities like food and water, since the population is so large, the city must be large too, and in which our necessities are housed and produced tens (to potentially hundreds) of miles away from where we live, whereas the 
rural man lived alongside where his necessities are found.
I present another perspective: The Structure Theory. A primary factor for the collapse of something biologically is the demand being greater than the supply. When the organism can thrive, that is usually caused by the supply for the organism being greater than the demand needed for that supply. The collapse of a system in society can therefore be predicted by observing the system’s demand and how that supply may be sustained. So, in the context of an urban state, the constant rise in demand of consumer goods correlates to the rise in supply of these goods, and the rise in demand can only be acquired through the destruction of the environment to make way for further expansion. "But what does this have to do with collapse", you may ask? Well, the increase in artificial tools used to aid in society increases the collapse it may cause be that it comes across a failure. If there is a large amount of society that is solely reliant on specific supplier measures, then the harder society falls if this supplier fails to supply and meet up with the demand. In summary, the larger the demand is, the larger the supply needs to be. A malfunction of supply will have worse effects on greater demands than those of smaller demands. The supply and demand must be proportionate, and must be lower in size.
This is also partly why I support social darwinism, as if we sustain the weak, we are causing a higher demand thus resulting in further collapse of the environment and of society as a whole.
Capital as Freedom
There are many arguments that leftists (specifically of the 
individualist types) like to argue against the permissiveness of capitalism. One of the most prominent arguments I hear is that capitalism is not permissive because capital enslaves man and is only permissive insofar as the individual acts upon the reproduction of capital. I counter-argue this using the "structure theory" argument I give in the ruralist section. First off, if every human's needs are consistently met, all the while humans consistently reproduce, this creates a counter-balance. As humans reproduce, so too does the demand of these people in terms of biological needs. As the demand goes up, so too does the supply. But to supply an ever-increasing amount of people, there would need to be extreme forms of 
environmental deconstruction to make way for the production of the supply. This of course is disastrous towards an individualist society, and either the society 
succumbs to the ever-increasing demands of the society, or the 
state strengthens legislation in order to combat this product.
Post-Abortionism
I use the term "Post-Abortion" because I believe that modern "pro-life" movements and ideology do not go far enough. I am extremely pro-choice. I believe that the right to have an abortion extends to anywhere before the water breaks. I even accept likewise forms of abortion that happen outside of the womb (not killing, of course). My argument is this:
We can accept that killing an animal is okay. This is presumably because it lacks the cognitive ability of sentience to which we place extraordinary importance on in the topic of ethics. We can then establish that a fetus, that of which has no consciousness, cannot dictate its life in any rational way, and therefore can be exterminated by its mother while in the womb. Moreover, the fetus is an organism that lives artificially. That is, it lives parasitically upon its mother, and therefore the mother additionally has the right to abort it insofar as it lives upon the mother's own property and from the mother's own nutrient.
Outside of the womb is the same argument, but different story. Since the child requires the mother's own labor and property in order to survive, it is of the mother's (or guardian's) choice to evict the child from their property, whether or not the child is sent to any fosterical organization or institution.
On Land
This is one of the things that I would not consider myself as simply "Darwinist" on, and that is on the topic of land ownership. My reasoning is this: Land, unlike other resources, is not gained from labor. That is, unlike food or capital, in which labor is needed in order to acquire it, land is different in that keeping it for yourself is not expropriating the resource from another person. This is the idea of Propertarianism. What drives me away from propertarianism, however, is the unjust hoarding of it in very large amounts. I do not believe any one person can and should own more than an acre of land, let alone whole towns and cities. The alternative of this is 
Georgism, wherein the land is taxed based on the value of said land. I have 3 qualms with this. Firstly, value is subjective, meaning that finding the right value to tax land owned by someone would be impossible, as that land would be considered valuable to some and not valuable to others, meaning that it would be possible for the government to say that a piece of land is extremely valuable and would be able to extort that land by jacking up the tax for that land. Another problem I have with Georgism is, since this land isn't earned by the state, only expropriated by the state, taxing land would still be unethical because the state owns more land than it needs, and it taxing land makes it a rentier, something that Georgists don't want in the first place. This of which brings me to my third problem, and that is the fact that Georgism still makes it impossible for those that don't have, or have very little capital to homestead a small property in order to live and work on their own behalf.
My solution? It would be a form of 
Lockean Proviso. In essence, it believes that anyone may own land, as long as he has enough land and there is more than enough land for those around him to settle. This gets rid of any forms of 
land expropriation from others.
Anti-Pollution
I believe that the destruction of the environment is a form of aggression. When we see pollution, we note that it causes some sort of direct effect upon an individual. That effect being some sort of disturbance of the individual's bodily mechanism. But this indirect harming of another person isn't always considered aggression. What to consider if we want to know if the action is a polluter or not is based on these distinct factors: If the action done is of acquiring a finite resource required for physiological needs, or if the action is not necessarily required for an individual's physiological needs, but still harms others in the process. Large-scale, heavy pollution of the light, sound, and environment would be considered an initiation of environmental and spacial action, of which violating our principal, because it is not a physiological need used for survival, and it indirectly harms the process of the human body, concluding indirect aggression unto a populous. Suppose if someone has a machine that is located on their own property, and their property is neighboring another property. And suppose that this person’s machine is loud enough that it causes physical bodily harm towards it’s neighbor. This person would be in direct violation of our principal, because it is not the lack of a scarce resource that the neighbor is being damaged from, but rather that of loud sound, one that the person who owns the machine does not necessarily need to survive, nor need to produce in order to survive.
Minarchism
This belief of mine stems mainly from the classical conception of a minarchy, as well as 
Robert Nozick's interpretation of it as detailed in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. I argue in favor of the state because of what the state provides. In an anarchist society, the security of the individual is solely relied upon the privatized institutions that protect the land. That is, if you do not give to the state, they won't protect you. In a minarchist society, however, institutions like police and fire departments are directly owned and controlled by the state, and therefore these institutions have a duty to serve no matter if victims are paying the state or not. To put it simply, minarchy concludes security measures towards individuals no matter what, contrary to anarchy, which entails only protection for those that pay money to the protectors.
Mercantilism
Literally Mercantilism. I believe that to increase the early state's wealth and power, increasing exports, especially those of which that are valuable and illegal goods, to other countries and territories. I also somewhat agree with it's economics (although not entirely, I'll get to that later maybe), that being, the idea that wealth exists finitely and it is simply distributed based upon the acquisition of said materials.
Narcotic Imperialism
I mainly take inspiration from the Neoliberal foundation, believing that national power is increased via trade. I believe, however, that if we want to imperialize a country, we have to work directly with those going against it. That is, trading with businesses outside of the state structure. Cartels and other drug empires would theoretically be our best trade partners because we can take direct advantage of the illegalization of it, and take control of the monopoly of it. Concluding from that, we weaken the states that we trade with, and strengthen ourselves out of it.
Post-Cameralism
I use the term "Post-Cameralism" as a continuation of regular 
cameralism. That is, instead of the economy being centralized in order to increase profits to the state, the economy is decentralized, but the state uses free-market strategies in order to increase profits to it. I believe this would be a viable strategy in order to bring about the state I envision. We ought to form the state and build it up using the aforementioned.
Vanguardism
I agree with 
Lenin's critique of spontaneous revolutionary action. Reason being, it is too disorganized to be effective. Taking from Lenin's "What Is To Be Done", and replacing "working class" with "the common man" (common man being those of which are overtly oppressed by the state), we can see the same argument take place. Lenin's idea was mostly focused on the destruction of the bourgeoisie, which in essence is what we're about, as the state is comparable to the bourgeoisie state that Lenin seeked to destroy. Only a revolution which is large, organized, and disciplined will be able to overthrow the state.
Hate Lenin all you want, but his revolutionary ideas were on point.
State Metaphysics
The state, as a PHYSICAL concept, is that which is held as a higher power, which provides physical and tangible legislation unto a society. But a state, metaphysically, is simply the cooperation and coordination of a society. I define a state as a conglomerate, that of which has the social coordination over a territory of land. So with this set, I do not believe nor consider anarchism to be possible, as the state is non-physical, the collected society will always be considered a state.
Anti-Populism
I take most of my critique of liberal democracy from famous Scottish Anarchists such as 
Markus Meechan. I believe that liberal democracy never works perfectly, and that is because the people slowly vote themselves into authoritarianism. The government likes to create a problem, then offers the solution to the problem. That solution to the problem that they created is always about giving the government more power. In other words, the government creates things to fear, and as fear increases, the populous agrees with more legislation taking place, thus decreasing the individual liberties of individuals in the state.
Constant Revolution
My belief is that both the citizens of the nation-state, as well as the governors of that nation-state, both have different agendas and desires. This happens to cause a tension between the citizens and the government. Using this information, we need to find a way to strike a balance between said desires. Violent uprising between either side can be defected so long as both sides - the citizens and the government - are around equal strength in power. So long as both sides are equal in power, neither would want to revolt against the other, as that would be inefficient and costly.
Buddhist Theocracy
I believe in a non-secular state to that of which puts 
Buddhism as the national religion. What that does NOT entail, however, is legislation of any kind that has to do with said religion. I believe that it should be taught to others, but I do not believe that it should be enforced onto the population.
Rationalism
Humans are the most rational species on earth. What I mean is, we have the ability, unlike other animals, to think and behave in a rational way. That is, we are able to fully understand and comprehend what our actions entail and the consequences of our actions. I also believe that reason is always going to be better than experience when obtaining certainty in knowledge. Contrary to reason, experience is deeply fallacious and the way in which we gain certainty cannot be based off the non-conscious correlation of reason. Also you can view this part of my page as a philosophy dump.
Cultural Progress
Progressivism, as I explain in Freedom Complex, can be defined as the decentralization of tradition. An example of the contrary, family values would be considered centralized tradition because it is a tradition that is centralized around the family, the family being that unitary being that grows its tradition from its offspring. Contrary to this, however, is decentralized tradition. That is, the family does not attach its traditions to their children and expect those children to keep said traditions. Instead, these children form their own traditions from their own experiences growing up, and dont necessarily follow a set of traditions from anyone else. Moreover, progressivism can also be in the form of social stigmas, wherein a progressive society, social stigmas slowly disappear within a centralized form, and instead exist only in small quantities within society.
Conservatism and traditionalism are often times resulted in the conglomerate of the people, whose goal is to indoctrinate as much people into their ways of life. The problem with such a system is that it teaches children communitarian systems; It teaches children that the community and the family is more important than yourself, and such goals in life should be to serve and be apart of your community until you die. That is absurd for many reasons. Moreover, the ideas of social stigmas make it more difficult for the individual to fully express themselves, i.e. it de-individualizes individuals, which is antithetical to our movement.
The truth is, there is no importance within inherited culture. Culture, and more specifically ideas, have no objective truth to them, and when people put truth into them specifically because it is inherited, just goes to show that there is no objective truth to culture, and thus traditions have no importance but to appease 
reaction.
Progressivism is the manifestation of the individualist and deterministic belief. Conservatism is a falsehood led by the fetishization of the past insofar that there is subservience. Conservatism implies that human will should be abolished, favoring the collectivistic and communitarian ethics instead. Conservatives argue that the human nature implies a social duty in which the collectivist argument can be given. What is wrong about this, however, is that conservatives fight for the preservation of traditional duties and values in a more coercive way than what they argue. If human nature was this way, they would not need to rely on esoteric means in order to cull the populous into their perceived idea of social order.
Duhkha
Suffering is the single most fundamental truth about life. For every positive emotion that happens in the brain, it is either counteracted by a negative emotion or a negative emotion precedes it, acting as a prerequisite for said positive emotion. Suffering exists because of inherent thought within beings. A being suffers because their organism is lacking in a certain biological need, and thus requires an acting force to suppress those needs. The suffering comes in predominately when the being is in an attempt at acquiring these acting forces. However, suffering can manifest in two other theorized forms as well, that is of the impermanence of hedonistic driving forces, and the loss of the ideal of self-image (this one shows up more or less in the human species only, previous one is arguable). The Buddha teaches somewhat (with my own spin on it) the idea that those of which that are not biological needs, rather the needs of the mind, are unimportant and, what the Buddha predominately teaches, that we go through the path of enlightenment to get over our desires.
The Eight-Fold Path is, according to the Buddha, the best psychological strategy to rise above desire. What it does is, it forges the human brain to learn to act and behave in a way that causes us to not act through our impulses. Most of the non-physiological needs are acted upon OUT OF impulse, and thus when one reaches the state of mind to where impulse doesn't have an effect upon the action of the individual, the individual no longer feels suffrage for the many types of artificial needs manifested upon them.
Deep Ecology
Deep Ecology's main idea is that humans and animals are equal. I argue that we as humans normally see our species as more important for this important biological factor: That we are the same species. Observing the animal kingdom, we can see that any species most, if not always, sees itself and other organisms of the same species as more important and treats them with higher regard. This would explain why we see ourselves as morally superior and why other organisms do the same.
Continuing from the Darwinist section, we can now know why we would rather put a dog down who is living on extreme artificial means, but not a person. We see our species as superior, thus we put more importance on those of us who are living on extreme artificial means. Thus there is no conceivable counter-argument for this based on reason, but rather of 
reaction.
Objectivism
I agree with Ayn Rand on the basis that reality, that of which is TANGIBLE and based upon physical manifestations, is objective fact. Consciousness is the ability to perceive reality. A disability, such as blindness or deafness, is a disability on the consciousness's ability to perceive reality. A blind man's consciousness cannot perceive physical objects and light sources, while a deaf man's consciousness cannot perceive the sound waves that are released from things.
Language
Words do not have inherent or objective meaning. Language changes all the time, and this fact alone proves this theory. The 3 factors that decide a word's meaning in a sentence are: Connotation, Context, and Intent. The changing of a word's widely-agreed-upon definition has to do with the word's usage, usually providing a disillusion of one of the three factors. If the word is used in the wrong connotation, context, or intent, it creates the disillusion that changes the word's meaning based on the sentence provided.
Slurrification
Furthering on from our defining factors for a word, we can see what makes slurrification possible in the first place. The slurrification of a word usually has to do with the currently defined meaning being used in a derogatory context. Words already defined as slurs, even based on the nature of the word described, are not inherently slurs. The reason being, the meaning of a word relies on connotation. If one uses a word that is considered derogatory, but does so in a non-derogatory manner (this could be describing something or saying the word in the context of describing said word) Then the word cannot be considered derogatory. We can say the same for that of intent. If a derogatory word is said without malicious intent, but is rather intended to be utilized in a different way, then logically this person isn't being inherently "racist" or the like, depending on the word.
Observation of the Human Mind
My belief is that that of which is considered an arbitrary need of the human mind (that is, anything that isnt a physiological need) is not a need but of which is merely an abstraction of the human mind. That said, I critique the human condition for these main reasons:
1. Where as animals only feel emotion when it naturally fits or benefits them, us as humans have gotten used to relaying emotion even during times that it is not justifiably needed, and this has caused a wide-spread culture of reliance on these emotions.
- 1.1: this was mostly caused by the same factors that cause
hedonism in society.
2. This has caused a schism of materialism, separating good materialism from bad materialism. I define the separation of the good and bad materialism as the chasing and acquisition of material "goods", those of which the material goods that are beneficial to one's survival in some way.
- 2.1: Since the modern human has less of a necessity to chase material "goods", they instead spend their time chasing material "bads"
3. I generally consider myself a 
Dualist, because in reality there are 2 different categories that conceive reality. An example would be physical and non-physical; conscious and tangible; arbitrary and reality, of which I predominately use in my examples.
Social Isolation as the One True God
"While permanently living in the social sphere, one is doomed to live in coercion."
I see social isolation as an important part of being alive. I also treat it as a sovereign god. Why? Social isolation is what truly makes us human. The experiences we face on our own are drastically different from what we experience when we are in a scenario with others. In predominately social situations, our beliefs and true self are coerced and shaped by those around us. Social isolation also makes us happier. When humans socially isolate themselves, we feel happier as we are focused on ourselves, not acting upon the self interest of others but ourselves instead. I believe that social isolation has had a bad reputation as a direct result of 
urbanism. We naturally feel sadder when we are in extremely unnatural places, such as being cooped up in a house or city. Social isolation would have a better reputation if it were in a different environmental setting, such as natural forestry. Social isolation also has a positive effect in terms of denial. When we are in social situations, slights and denials tend to turn us down and cause negative effects upon us. Social isolation, on the contrary, gets rid of any chance of this happening, all of this concluding to a happier life.
Political Evolution
 Sentience and it's consequences... |
 +  + 
|
 I'm not even sure... |
 +  + 
|
 Make Libertarian Market Socialism Great Again |
 +  + 
|
 "Neo-Luddist Anarcho-Capitalism" |
 +  +
|
 Not much to say about this one. |
+ + 
|
 I gave up luddism around this time. |
+ + 
|
 Me now. |
+ +
|
I was insane and thought that sentience was the biggest problem and thought that we needed to obliterate every sentient being and destroy the universe so that sentience can never happen again.
I found out about VHMENT and my economic and civic beliefs came to light.
I gave up leftism.
I gave up anarchism.
I gave up luddism around this time, and adopted the 
Neo-Kaczynskist philosophy.
Relationships
Ideologies
- What I think about other ideologies in general:
Great.
- The Ultimate Doctrine Of Libertarianism - There is seriously no reason to live if your only reason to live is to serve someone other than yourself.
Buddhism - The Buddha was correct about everything.- Libertarian Environmentalism - Polluting the environment, by any means, will always lead to a violation of the NAP.
Multiculturalism - Decentralize tradition.
Acceptance.
Good.
Rothbardianism - While I am not an anarchist, I do agree with your theory of natural rights.
Transgenderism - The right is wrong to put you in the asylums. Since you live perfectly fine without asylums, and most your people live fine without welfare, means that you function perfectly fine, disproving the right and proving you better than the mental deficit.
Middling.
Negativistic.
Platonism - "The form" is a rudimentary ideation based on a loose and arbitrary definition of "perfect".
Wrong.
Libertarian Conservatism- You are a disgrace to the Libertarian Movement, and the stupidest oxymoron ever.
Paleolibertarianism - You too.
Anarcho-Communism
Abhorrent.
Traditionalism - Culture has no importance whatsoever.
Conservative Socialism - We do not have a duty to serve our community. I denounce everything you stand for.
Reactionary Socialism - Above but worse.
Catholicism
Islamism
Racism - Uses the 
worst two worldviews to ever exist and mashes them up into pure stupidity.
Utilitarianism - Moral and ethical cuckold-ism.- Empiricism - It is extremely inefficient to posit that knowledge is best gained through sense-perception, since perception is of a subjective manner.
Users
Abacusism (/
/
)
(the first part also serves as a critique of 
Occo's critique of my social darwinism.) Yes, our species has survived mainly through it's communitarian tendencies. But that era is over now. We have the technologies to make individuals capable of surviving on their own. Furthermore, the value of labor is not equal, and so your society would be rewarding the ones who do more valuable labor the same as someone who does less valuable labor. This form of reward is insufficient.
- (note to self to remake this one, as you changed your ideals a lil bit)
Baxism (
/
/
/
)
I do not agree with the collectivization of society. But I do like the Rosseau part, but I dont understand why animals should rule, as animals can be just as psychopathic as humans, and maybe more.
Lankajori Thought (/
/
/
//
)
Tying conservatism solely to certain groups is an overly simplistic worldview. Conservatism is an all-encompassing ideology. As in, conservatism can be adopted by anyone to achieve conserving anything. 
Social Justice Warriors, for example, are reactionary in-definition because they argue for their ideology with no logic or pragmatism, and favor a reactionary outlook on their beliefs. Furthermore, what these people believe in is a culture, and they want to preserve that culture (and spread it, too). Lastly, social norms evolve, and to say that transsexualism or radical feminism cannot become a cultural norm (or even in the notion that they never existed at all) is outrageous.
- Lankajori Thought - Equating Reactionaries to SJW's is all I really need to say to disprove this but I'll speak on this more in my own page
Extreme Gainism (
/
/
/
/
/
)
Extremely aggressivist, which I despise. I dont agree that terrorism and war are even affective for gaining wealth. Yes, you can have enough oil rigs and factories. Although I agree that the bottom of the caste are the weak leeches who do not work but rather siphon off the strong. Those people should just be eliminated naturally, though. (this really just feels like the regular darwinist critique of 
kraterocracy.)
Rocksism (
//
/
)
The term "unjustified hierarchies" is a little arbitrary, don't you think? What type of hierarchy is unjustified, and have you thought of the reasons as to why some may be more stratified in society? I am generally in agreement with your culture section, although I disagree with gender abolition because I believe that gender (and gender constructs) are based in biology, and are naturally going to exist. Although I generally do agree that we should work to rid society of unnecessary and reactionary prejudices based off of nothing but reaction. I really like your praxis, and acting in solidarity against the oppressors that are the state. And lastly, I disagree with your organization, as individual autonomy means inherent stratification of the strong and self-sufficient. And attacking those who do stratify themselves on par their accumulation of a certain resource they can trade off for labor means you are not an individualist as there is no individual autonomy left.
Brazilian Liberalism (
/
/
/
/
)
First off, I generally disagree with your economics. I do support your deregulation. However, the things you want state-owned are horrendous. Healthcare and education should not be publicized. The centralization and de-individualism of the school system has created the awful curriculum that us students have to work with. A private and decentralized school system is better for students because it is not limited to a standard or curriculum and is actually flexible and able to work with individual students' (dis)abilities and passions, unlike the nationalized school curriculum now. The healthcare system is also something that should not be handled by the state. But I digress. Your social services belief is not pretty either. Poverty is important to maintain stratification. Moreover, minimum wage is awful, for many reasons, including that it is bad for smaller businesses, reducing competition and increasing the strength of monopolies. I feel that the term "class collaboration" is a bit redundant. The voluntary transaction of the workers and the businesses are inherently in collaboration. It is in both of their best interests to work with each other, and if it isn't then they wouldn't be working with each other. Furthermore, it would be in both the workers' and businesses' best interests to make themselves the best interests of the other side, because if they work against each other, then they both lose each other and their livelihoods. Income tax is abhorrent, especially in the amount that you proposed. Income tax is a form of slavery, as I note in the preface of 
The Freedom Complex. Taxing corporations is also negative, as taxing a big business would inadvertently cause them to move out of your country, where tax laws are exempt from such evil laws. If you tax land, then you shouldn't tax houses either. Car and pollution tax are the only taxes I agree with, and I think your pollution tax is too lenient. Overall, your economy, of which is just "rob the citizens of their labor so that they have to rely on the government", makes me sick to my stomach. Your social views are a little more agreeable, however, such as gender and sexual equality (although wood-chipper treatment for 
pedophiles). I agree with your believe of 
anti-racism, but not because of the reason you proposed. I believe it is dumbfuckery because the biological differences between the current races are extremely small. Yes, there can still exist biological differences within a same species, but most racists are more focused on phenotype rather than genotype. I do agree with your drug and abortion propositions, although I do not believe that either of these should be regulated at all. Your gun-rights ideals are awful though. I shouldn't need permission from 
terrorists the police to keep myself safe from criminals. Furthermore, if police had the control of whether or not citizens could carry guns, outside their home or not, then that would make the police a much more oppressive entity. I generally agree with your environmental propositions. Your governmental system seems off. First, using authoritarianism to combat authoritarianism is a little oxymoronic, don't you think? When I created my comment on 
Constant Revolution, I had the quote “who will guard the guards themselves?” in mind. Where both parties of the citizens and the government are guarded by each other. But if you have an authoritarian state to combat corrupt officials, who guards the government guarding the corrupt officials? I also wanted to comment on your death penalty proposition. Although I generally agree that someone who infringes on the rights of others should have their rights taken away, I believe that your propositions such as insurrection and crimes against the state are evil. The state is ran by humans, too, and the fact that the people running the government are exempt from such laws is very hypocritical, since you believe in giving the state the allowance to commit heinous acts of slavery upon the citizens of the nation. The section of police I find abhorrent. Secret police do nothing but make your country more corrupt. I also wanted to note that, drug traffickers are not criminals, as crime is defined as acts of aggression upon another individual, and trading is not a form of aggression. "When the police need to hide from you to protect and serve you, their interest is no longer to protect and serve you." I disagree with your autonomy of state. States do not have rights, people do, and giving states more rights means they have the power to obliterateamend the constitution freely. Also conscription is slavery. Overall, I see your governmental system as hyper-authoritarian and extremely hypocritical. I am curious as to why you believe in patriotism. Also 
civic nationalism (and terrorists 
the government) caused this. Your foreign policy was sickening. And even I thought you couldn't get less evil after reading that you agreed with conscription. You wanting to help with coups against leaders opposed to hyper-authoritarianism is genuinely the most abhorrent thing I've read in your page thus far. Dear god. Onto philosophy, I disagree with your notion on individualism. The individual does not have autonomy if they should answer the community. I generally agree that hedonism is not the best and that it will always seep through into our society, and our propositions are somewhat similar, although I believe in teaching the youth about Buddhism. I also generally agree with the Neo-enlightenment, but I don't think it should be violent.
And that, my friend, is why I called you 
Benito Mussolini all those years ago. (I also really respect your page for actually having something new and interesting)
Alstūdism (
/
/
/
/
)
Ah, look what we gots here. Starting with your governmental beliefs, I don't agree with republicanism all that much. Although, what can I say, I don't like it because authoritarianism and you like authoritarianism, so critiquing republicanism would be useless here. I do not understand why you think monarchy is "reactionary" though. Monarchy has a genuine pragmatic reason to exist and calling it a reactionary institution seems meaningless. Like my spiel on republicanism, I personally don't like technocracy, but I would see it's usefulness in a more centralized and statist government. I'm not going to critique reforms since I'm not too informed on anything you mention there, but i do want to mention that you placed the Autocracy file next to Kansler, and like, that's pretty close to monarchism, yo (at least if I am interpreting you correctly). onto succession and promotion, I see that you mention that you are selected "not solely to public opinion" and I'm just curious, since you said "not solely", how much public opinion DOES have on your selection. The general idea of having others vote for your technocratic leaders still seems counter-productive, in my opinion, because you are 1. taking time away from things that do matter and 2. just my general critique of democracy as a whole, really, because voters can still just vote for bad people. Even if it is the technocratic council members, because the council members still have to waste their time researching on the new guys coming into the council. So it just seems way too counter-productive, and if I was a fascist like you I would pick something like 
Monarcho-Syndicalism. Now onto economics. See, I don't think you realize just how important selfishness is. You seem to have a disdain for the "profit-driven nature of the bourgeoisie", and note that it conflicts with national interests. But you see, your national interest is, and I cite, from you, to "maximize happiness". The reason why people are selfish and driven by profit in the first place is because they are trying to maximize their happiness. To want to maximize happiness in a country, but also simultaneously want to bog the people down with tight regulations so that they are both efficient and subservient is bafflingly oxymoronic as all hell. I do somewhat agree with your expansion of foreign industries. Although, there is a reason why autarky never works. It is simply too unstable, as there is less product able to be supplied, and your state would have to have industry for everything, instead of being able to rely on imports for some specific things. Although I understand your want for wanting to be fully self-sufficient in many things, such as food production, but that simply would be too difficult of a task. Onto social views, I respect the feminism and the opposition to affirmative action, seeing that your state heavily relies on skilled individuals, affirmative action would be greatly counter-productive. What is impossible though, is preventing affirmative action, as your strategy to invite new council members is still largely democratic, and you can't stop any of the voters' biases on affirmative action, whether they are for it, they will simply give a different reason as to why they chose a member to be apart of the council. On your transgender beliefs, I used to be like you. I used to believe that transgenderism was a mental illness, and I still do, but I don't believe that psychiatric help will do much. Lastly, I can critique your opposition to pornography in a Social Darwinist perspective. You believe that it negatively affects society, because ????? (I seriously don't even know lol), while I believe that it POSITIVELY effects society. Reason being, if an individual ruins their life from an addiction, it shows that they are not deserving of life. Likewise, if an individual uses pornography in a good manner and is still largely okay, removing something they like would be counter-productive and make this person less productive as a result. Onto education, I don't believe that your strategy of mandated reading will do anything. I remember being in 5th grade, I and all my friends, a large majority of the school, fucking HATED reading, as we were forced to read 30 minutes a day after school. Kids are naturally rebellious, and there is absolutely NOTHING you can do about it. Also same with your national anthem and flag mandating. We all used to do the national anthem in class. I for sure know that every single person who does it does not do it because they love their country, but simply because they were expected of doing it. I remember, back when I was doing it (I stopped at around 6th grade), I remember singing the anthem, but there were no thoughts going on in my head about how good our nation is. I firmly remember not having any thoughts whatsoever during every anthem that I could remember. Mandated anthem singing does nothing to increase pridefulness in your state. For culture, I don't have much to say but this: Nobody is forcing you to accept foreign values and systems. If anything, the destruction of your culture just goes to show that your culture is weak in the first place. For military and defense, I do quite agree with your idea to have the military be the main focus of the state, although I don't agree with conscription (now, I know you didn't necessarily quote that, but it seems to be implied in Kim Il Sung's 2nd policy). This is where your main beliefs get smaller, so I will no longer note what part I am on, only critiques I find. I agree with your idea on technological progression, as military, medicine, and power are all very important for the life of the individual and of your nation too. I also agree that green power should be put into place as quickly as possible, and likewise to eliminate fossil fuels as quickly as possible. I'm still meddling on Nuclear power, although I don't believe it should be used but that's only because of my ideas and circumstances. For National Essence, I am not an essentialist, as I believe that it is a deeply fallacious belief. Someone who might share the same heritage as the country does not have any "essence" to them, and likewise keeping people out who want to be part of your nation but are not of the same heritage seems very counter-productive, in my opinion. I personally see the same delusion of racialism as I do with ethnic nationalism. Ethnicity does not have any control over what culture you follow, nor the history, nor the social factors. With that said, ethnic faiths are dumb too. Also, I don't know why you hate japan, as it has somewhat the thing you're going for.
Overall, I enjoyed critiquing you (even though we're complete opposites), and I am excited to see when (or if) you ever do the same critique for me. 
Romantic Egoism(
/
/
/
/
)
REASON IS THE DEVIL'S WHORE!!!!! GRAH LET US GO FULL GRUG MODE AND RAPE AND MURDER WHOEVER WE WANT AAAAAAAAAAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! erm Romanticism is kinda mid, Egoism is just downright trash. Your critique on capitalism is silly as some art forms are naturally going to be more valued than others, and the only way you can provide for yourself is via providing others with what you produce, but if you dont wanna produce things for people then there's no need to worry about the monetary value of art, as long as you are able to provide for yourself. As for anarchy, I shall defend the state with the beliefs to that of Alissa Rand. That is, if we want to defend individual freedom and autonomy, we ought to have a minarchist state that defends individual rights.
Cosmic Vanguardism (
//
//
)
Aw shit, here we go again. Trad is gay, futurism is aight i guess. I am very sympathetic to paganism so there's that. Hitlerism is just shit, IDK what else to say about that but you probably get that a lot. Occultism and spiritualism is dumb because it uses false truths such as the primacy of consciousness as foundation for its ideas. Slight wrong grammar choices, as you wouldn't want to put "All being...", instead having it be held after a comma and not in it's own sentence. The one sentence afterwards using "All" as a sentence starter is grammatically correct, however.
New Economics for a Revitalized People 
Socialist. I don't really know what else to say, it is pretty gay. If you're trying to fulfill the needs of the whole society, 1: you're silly, and 2: you shouldn't even be using socialism. Socialism has not worked to fulfill the needs of groups in the past (see: lenin, stalin), and capitalism has been majoritively helpful in fulfilling the needs of society, as well as making the society better overall, even with welfare. I think in that aspect 
racially-nationalistic capitalism would be a better alternative than a 
communist one. We all know that centralized planning is a downright failure, as with centralized planning you cannot effectively distribute resources. You need 
decentralized market forces to do that. Lol, nationalized healthcare is a fucking failure why did you fall into the silly pit.
An Aryan Cultural Palingenesis 
Not much to say about this. Of course we disagree cuz I believe in no collective cultural norms while you don't, blah blah blah. I want to know where you get the idea that there is a shared duty for a group, particularly of a racial whole. Because I still have not seen any genuine points that argue against individualist meta-ethics. Once again, gay esoteric child shit.
Distributist Reactionaryism (
//
/
/
)
A retard beyond all extent. You seem to have a fetishization of the past, and a worldview that diminishes your entire being. You call for Catholic practices yet you want to burn the homosexuals. What happened to 'Love Thy Neighbor'? You're an evil child who wants to spread evil with you. I will die before kneeling to the false truth that is Catholicism.
Neo-Robespierrisme (/
/
//
)
If the 
french revolution was led by 
Charles Manson 
Cyber7878 Thought (
//
/
)
A Sowellist? Gross!
If you're self-interested, you would be against aggression. One who is irrational does not act in their self-interest. This of which brings me to my argument that the Austrian School and Chicago School are inherently incompatible with each other, and I remember you noting that you were leaving the Austrian School. All i can ask of is: What changed? Anyway, I would necessarily agree that it is unaccountable power that those "Anti-Social" seek out, but purely unaccountable power, not necessarily "centralized" power. If it is unaccountable, it must necessarily be decentralized. Centralized power is not the evil, but rather the opposite is true, for if evil action occurs in a centralized power, the source of such is easily identifiable and therefore accountability is easier interpreted. Onto morality, if it is true that the poor countries tend to be conservative, then it is the conservatives that are immoral. Poor countries have a habit of human rights violations, as they tend to be more primitive in philosophy and therefore of law (and this, I argue, is applicable to ALL of conservatism), which is why they don't have the concepts of morality, as it is necessarily a Western concept. What is necessary to maintain stable and civil societies is natural law and the whole ancap spiel. Onto governance, I obviously dislike 
Neocameralism for it acting like economics is a 
higher being than humans. And with that I conclude my dumb yapfest.
Relations In Line
Comments
Talk
please add discussions in this here template.
- - erm so school got me crazzy but once summer is in i will probably do like add all of you guys n shit. jus comment here ittle be fine i apreciate it
Evenoskyism - add me back please
Rocksism (
/
/
/
) - Could you readd? A bunch of stuff has changed since you first did.
Neocarlism - add muh
Distributist Reactionaryism - add me
Infinity Thought (
/
/
/
/
/
) - Can you add me please?
Rocksism - Hey do you mind if I steal your ideological evolution template?
Amism - What's your opinion on this page I created: Liminal Cultism And would you like to add anything to this page
Second Anidiotoncrack Thought- add first :D
Imperial Socialism - can you add me plz?
Bensonism - Add me you fag!
moxogeni - One of the best articles on the wiki. Congrats!
Venatrixism(
/
/
/) - Add me TIIKET
User:Cyber7878 (//
/
) - Update me brah
Debate
please add debates in this here template.
- - Why do you support Centralism over Federalism, if Federalism revolves around liberties while the other don't? Even thought i am Authoritarian myself, i am still in support of the federal system. Why Centralism?
- - Because there needs to be a central authority that contains the constitutional laws that rule over the land. Im okay with local governments, but they cannot create and enforce new laws.
Notes
in order of creation, not necessarily appearance.
I was already a stuanch believer in the Trickle-Down economic theory, 
he only reinforced my beliefs in it.- Even though I'm not. Bleeding Heart Libertarianism concludes some sort of charity programs, which I am staunchly against.
Gallery
Art? Of me? I'd gladly appreciate it!
Comics