Neo-Nasakomism

Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent Nurisk5's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.

Work in Progress "I'll be done any day now!" - Still-Being-Drawnism This page is not done yet and may still contain inaccurate information or miss important details.

Nuriskianism
“Caption”
Basic Information
Aliases	Feel Free to add your Insults here Nurul Iskandar Nurisk nurisk5 (discord tag (DMs open)) @Nuriskianism (twitter handle) Nermalisme Cringe Faggot Indognesian Cool opponent Left Quarkism Normal Pills Indonesian Nazbol 🤮ism Comrade Confederate
Alignments	AuthLeft Culturally Syncretic Socialists Nationalists Communists
Ideological Influences
Influenced by	Heideggerianism Marxism Leninism National Communism Pancasila Futurism Anti-Humanism Zizekianism Fourth Political Theory Guattarism Tasawuf Marxism Anti-Humanism Materialism Cultural Nationalism Multiculturalism Pan-Nationalism Traditionalism Kosyginism
Ideological Information
Notable Theorists	Nurul “Nurisk” Iskandar (?-), Indonesia
Character Information
Song	Dekon

Nuriskianism is a thing., expect sluggish development.

Metaphysics

Unlike Dugin, I'm a Materialist, so I take Heidegger the same way thinkers like Graham Harman take Heidegger. (even doe i never read harman)

That's the one major difference between Me and Dugin, the other being that I'm more leaning toward Communism.

Sacredness exists for each Civilisation which contains within a Myth, Myth that expresses itself in ways either Mystical, Artistic, and so forth. I am personally apathetic but Sacredness is certainly important for Culture, we should invert Marx’s idea that the people will pursuit a “Material happiness” because, let’s face it, that’s just consumerism is it not?

Liberalism bad

I don't like Liberalism because Individualism bad. Individualism bad because chaos bad, chaos is ontologically non-productive.

Chaos = Void in greek, Chaos doesn't make things, it destroys things. The Anarchy of Production under Capitalism (the Free Market) can only make things because it is organised, ordered, and structured. Whilst it is chaotic, the chaos is very much like outer space in that you have Stellar and Planetary systems floating about in space, though they do interact with one another through competition (So a bunch of Type 2 civilisations competing?).

Liberalism also believes it is a Universal truth and it seeks to monopolise it's grip upon the world. Unipolarity centralises itself around a single Star (that being the west) and doesn't allow for other Star systems to develop. Eventually the contents of the star would die out and cause the Star to go kaboom and explode and right now that is happening, however the Dark god, Capital tries to stop this supernova from happening to allow for more stars to form and does this through monitoring and regulating the total amount of output it generates and stunt the developments of the Third World, yadi yadi yada, Imperialism and Monopoly Capitalism regulates the developments of the periphery which stunts them (meaning that so called "international cooperation" is bad to an extent).

What I mean "to an extent" is that if the economy centralises around foreign monopolies, development is stunted, if the economy decentralises around smaller local companies, no influx of Capital to develop the country meaning that it's in the interests of the local states to monitor the development of the productive forces.

We need more factories and industrialised farms, locally or foreign built, then we will seize them.

More stars, the better, hence, Multipolarity being a theory around Civilisations going their own ways whilst still interacting with each other.

Indonesian Political Platonism

Pancasila is just rebranded western humanism, it's something for the Indonesian people to have as our Special values so as to not have to lean towards Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religions specifically.

Pancasila is a compromise among all Religions, the five principles in it I'm not going to attack but will take critically. Pancasila, in my opinion, cannot be interpreted willy nilly or else we end up with it falling into the hands of "the wrong people".

First of all, I want to emphasize that the first Sila, "Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa" should be the most prime principle, hence why it is the first principle. The presupposition of a "One" we cannot extract any values of "Good" from there. I suppose one could describe me as a "Pseudo-Platonist" though whilst I am technically a Nominalist, I recognise that Plato is the first step in creating National value systems and Traditions, even when we do not realise it.

Plato's grip is very tight on Collectivism, the "One" emanates "the Many" and "the Many" are simply extensions of "the One". Therefore, whatever benefits "the One" is morally good as opposed to what benefits "the Many".

By "Many" and "One" I am referring to Individuals and Wholes respectively, Individuals are many and have their own interests, Wholes are comprised of Individuals (although Platonists would like to say the other way around).

The Platonic Republic is nothing short of a State that focuses on the Whole than the Individual, the Collective society, but not necessarily Democratic (at least, in the liberal sense). What Democracy manifests itself as in the Platonic Republic is what Guided Democracy was for Indonesia (1959-1965) and the New Order (1966-1998). TNO and GD both had their positives and weaknesses, I want to focus on a synthesis between GD and TNO by utilising the teachings of GD and the open developmentalism of TNO.

First of all, let's set things clear here, the Individual is a member of the Whole (i.e. the Nation or some other group), whilst it is Socially constructed, the relations emerge Organically through a common Social, Cultural, and Economic Life that manifests among a people living within a territory and sharing a History.

Second of all, I want to revive Nasakom in a modern context. Nasakom, (Nasionalisme, Agamisme, Komunisme (Nationalism, Religion, Communism) will be the way that we will interpret Pancasila, why? Why not Liberalism? Or Fascism?

Liberalism is already what we are trying to fight against here, Liberalism will implode in on itself within the next Industrial Revolutions ahead as a Multiplicity of Economic forces arise in competition against the existing Economic forces from the Imperial core.

We need to develop productive forces, we need to brush away the specks of the small petty proprietors and move towards another Industrial Revolution, we need Capital to flow through and develop our productive forces. It matters little if the Capital is local or foreign, we need to understand that without Industrialisation, there can be no way for our Nation to rise in the upcoming age of Multipolarity, and with it, also Socialism.

We, even as Communists, thank Soeharto for the development of the productive forces, even if it came from the expense of Millions of our lives, the real tragedy was the transition into Liberal Democracy again.

Nasakom tells us that we must overthrow Property ownership, to "give up" trying to amass control over things, and allow the whole of society to use them, this, Communism, we abandon what it means to own "private property" as, instead, we hand it over to the whole of society. We surrender the Individual into the Whole, the Many into the One. What it means for us to manifest the idea of "Persatuan Indonesia" is the organic unity of all members of Indonesian society. Social Ownership fulfills the principles of "Keadilan Sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia" and "Kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab".

Social Ownership entails that the Means of Production is handled in a socialised manner through the Nationalisation of all Land and Production which would be managed by delegates whom oversee the production and management of the Economy over a given Commune. These delegates will be delegated by society through an entrusted sovereignty, that, they serve the particular interests of a given section of the Economy.

Note how not once have I referred to "the people" as a collective and indiscriminate whole? There's a reason for that. "The People" as a whole is unspecified if given no adjectives, each "People" are their own with their own economic and social lives, even between jobs, that the life of a Farmer is far radically different from the life of a Waiter, or that of a Fisherman.

The culture of National, Ethnic, Religious, and so forth collectivities are also guilty of difference (which should be obvious).

What this means is that to say "the interests of the people" would be a foolish statement due to the diverse nature of what even makes up a "people", anyone who uses "the people" without an adjective is untrustworthy and does not value or recognise diversity, Equality is not a real thing, instead, we try to stretch the definition of "Equal" so much because we see it as some sort of "virtue" that we should have. It is a common political tactic amongst populists that inevitably lead toward Fascism (and here we have gone full circle).

Certainly, the Elites are of a concern for us but we should be careful when campaigning for Anti-Elitism.

A common notion is that "Elitism bad because the money and the country belongs to the people!" and then coupled with "That's why we need (insert name for "good" elites) in charge!". I want a Politico-Cultural Elite, I want the Indonesian People to be Guided, I want a return to Guided Democracy, is that too much to ask? Let's call them "Partisans" whom are part of the "Vanguard Party", yeah, that feels better.

Vanguardism

Vanguard Party because who else to hold up and maintain the curtain against Nihilism and generate myths that would keep up the flame of tradition.

Ethnos

Ethnos is an Organic entity that emerges out of a common Culture, Myth, Logos, etc.

Dugin isn't some weirdo Russian fascist or whatever, he is critical about the direction society is going and what this means for Russian society. Ethnosociology works by analyzing the Ethnos and from there we could use that as a basis for the revitalization of Society.

Dugin is facing off against Postmodernity, its nihilistic shortcomings, and skeptical of the idea of constant "progress" as a source of meaning. Dugin can be described as an “Alternative” Postmodernist where he wishes to go towards beyond Modernity whilst at the same time critiquing what remains of it within Postmodernity, Postmodernity is still following the Liberal myth of “Progress” as a necessity which neglects the differences between peoples and replaces it with Western Civilisation.

Building Socialism

Party to People = Shaping Culture - People to Party = Feedback

Enterprises to Party = Taxes - Party to Enterprise = Agenda

Enterprise to People = Commodities - People to Enterprise = Purchase

People to Communes = Feedback - Communes to People = Policy/Law Enforcement

Commune to SSR = Feedback - SSR to Commune = Agenda

SSR to Party = Feedback - Party to SSR = Agenda

Ecology

TBA

How to Draw

Flag

1. Draw a ball with eyes, mouth, and hair
2. Color the hair Black
3. Color the Irises Red
4. Fill the top half of it with red
5. Fill the lower half of it white (or leave it blank if the page isn't transparent)
6. Draw a Chaos symbol in it with upside-down inverted colors
7. Draw a body
8. Fill it with white
9. Give her clothes (optional)
10. You're done!

Color Name		HEX	RGB
	Red	#cd1127	205, 17, 39
	White	#ffffff	255, 255, 255

Self Insert Relations

Gem

Hoodism - Communist Gem, though suffering mainstream communist rhetoric coal
Baxism - Ego-Paetelism? Eh, close enough
Philosophical Nuggets thought - Gemmy, but far too short. Also not a fan of Agrarianism, Neoluddism, and Strasser.
Daniel Sansón Thought - I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you’re fine but needs working.

Carbon

Social Nationalism - a Nationalist SocDem, nothing to say tbh.
Alstūdism - Nationalistic Socialism is cool and all but why Parliamentarianism? Why Ethnonationalism? Also, Modernist.
Agricoetism - Alright i guess.

Coal

Hyperfascism - The one time I suggest a Non-Anarchist to read On Authority. Dugin takes from the Right is the appreciation of Tradition, not Supremacy. Communism rejects any kind of “sacredness” that Liberalism has for the Individual or Fascism has for the Nation and instead focuses on the critique of all that exists, this then we can place new lines of expression without it eating itself into Totalitarianism nor disintegrating itself into Individualism, this is what Dugin means when he wants to reject the Materialism that Communism upholds. Also, No, War is not a necessity for rejuvenation, one does not need to be in constant conflict to follow the Sufi path nor invent Algebra.
Hispanic Reactionary Monarchism - Reactionary Larper, not even the semi-decent ones (neoreactionaries)
Caesar Thought - boring reactionary fascist.
Baundoun Thoughts - I don’t like Reactionaries what do you expect?
Generouschalk0 thought - coal, me no like solarpunk, ocalan, bookchin, democracy, or progressivism.
Cannabis Anarchy - Absolute Postie NPC. Too much works that lead up to the same message with nothing interesting to provide. Consider going outside of it for once and stop malding when someone has doubts about the usefulness of Egoism, You are the Living Proof that me leaving the Post-Left was the Right Move and my Thesis on Individualism is correct. Also read Dugin, lib. Hysteria Thought - Whole lotta yap, dawg you are NOT the next Nick Land. Poeticism is cool and all and Neologism, sure, if you can explain it but Dawg, YOU LITERALLY USE MULTIPLE FONTS JUST TO TALK ABOUT YOURSELF I AIN’T TRYNA DECIPHER FUCKING ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ASS LANGUAGE. Anyway too much yap to call yourself an AnCap.
Leviathan - Whole lotta yap just to say “I do not understand how Social Darwinism works, therefore I will worship der Fuhrer and take whatever edgy quotes and works and misinterpret them”. Your “critique” of Freedom sucks and unlike mine it’s literally just about how good and smart and shit il Duce is than about having the balls to assert dominance over anyone who thinks you shouldn’t have that power and/or the concept of “freedom from”.
Meadowsin's Basilisk - A Post-Leftist. How I ache that your ideas be so contradictory. You want all to have Freedom yet you still haggle over Ideology? Why do you insist that to be free one must abandon these false Faiths and join your set of Moral truths? Ideology is inescapable, embrace Multiplicity, not Negation.
Neo-StockMarketCrash Thought - Steaming Pile of Proudhonian, Tuckerite, National Anarchist Coal
DECBism - Atlanticist Brimstone
Brazilian Liberalism - a liberal what do you expect
Radenism - Monarchist Vantablack Brimstone.
Distributist Reactionarism - 13 year old vantablack brimstone
Necro-Anarchism - The Nyxian-NatAn pipeline is real
Timocratic Neocameralism - Watered down Neocameralism
Romantic Egoism - I don’t like Individualists.
Rigby Thought - erm wjat
Cosmic Vanguardism - White.
Lankajori Thought - Petit Bourgeois.