BEWARE, ANTI-FAUSTIANS!
This page contains possibly disturbing content for:
Socialists (Actual Economic Theory)
Neoluddites (Acceptance of Medicine)
Nationalists (Rejection of Tribalism)
This page contains possibly disturbing content for:
Socialists (Actual Economic Theory) Neoluddites (Acceptance of Medicine) Nationalists (Rejection of Tribalism)
 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent NesanelReborn'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. |
Remodulism is an ideology that exists after the death of 
Neo-Phibunsongkhram Thought.
Since so many people all over the PCB community usually have curiosity towards what I believe in, or misunderstand my ideology, claiming that I’m either an ancap, a liberal, a technocrat, a transhumanist, a fascist, or whatever. I bet nobody here truly cares about what I believe in. I’ll just say that I believe that 
the LVT is the only good tax, 
a Monarch-CEO should be able to create their own kingdom to secede from 
a nation-state, 
morality is either 
fake or 
subjective, and there’s no logical way to escape from 
capitalism’s 
nihilistic, 
technologically deterministic, and 
materialistic 
deconstruction of 
humanity. I’m here to answer your questions, listing down what I believe in below here.
But before we get to the point, you should take a test for FPCBallers I made first, to prove how close you are to what I believe in.
After you’ve finished the test, let’s get to the point below.
Economy
Copyleft
- I oppose strong Intellectual Property protection as it is seen as a form of government intervention in the free market. IP laws usually restrict market competition and can lead to monopolies or oligopolies, thereby thwarting the free-market system's competitive nature. IP protection can also create an artificial scarcity that leads to higher prices for goods and services, which can be unaffordable for many people. This, in turn, can limit innovation, especially in less developed countries where companies and individuals may not have the resources to pay for IP licenses or legal fees associated with defending IP claims. Moreover, IP laws infringe on freedom of expression, as they allow corporations and individuals to control and restrict access to information and ideas. I view IP protection as an unjust restriction on individual liberty, as it limits the free flow of information. In summary, strong IP laws can be seen as an unnecessary government intervention that can stifle competition, lead to higher prices, limit access to information and hinder innovation.
Corporatocracy
- In my opinion, Corporations, as engines of economic activity, can contribute to overall economic growth through job creation, innovation, and investment in infrastructure. Corporations often focus on efficiency and productivity to remain competitive. This emphasis on efficiency can lead to cost savings and increased output, potentially benefiting consumers. Corporations, particularly in technology and research-intensive industries, can drive innovation by investing in research and development. New technologies and products can improve the quality of life and economic competitiveness. Corporations can facilitate international trade and globalization by producing goods and services that are distributed globally, leading to increased access to a variety of products and services. Large corporations can contribute significant tax revenue to governments, which can be used to fund public services and infrastructure development. Corporations provide employment opportunities for a substantial portion of the population, offering income and benefits to individuals and their families. Some corporations engage in philanthropic activities and social responsibility programs, contributing to social causes, disaster relief efforts, and community development. Corporations can also access large pools of capital through financial markets, which can be used for investment in growth and expansion.
Counter-Economics
- I would consider myself as a counter-economist. Kinda weird, but I’ll explain. Counter-economics emphasizes that all transactions should be voluntary and consensual, with no use of force or coercion. Counter-economists typically subscribe to the non-aggression principle, which means refraining from initiating violence or aggression against others. Counter-economics operates in markets that are typically unregulated or less regulated than traditional markets, often referred to as "gray" or "black" markets. Counter-economics often involves the use of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, which can provide a degree of anonymity and freedom from traditional financial institutions. Some counter-economists promote barter systems and agorist practices (engaging in counter-economic activities) as a means to subvert the traditional economy.
Formalism
- I believe that the actual power and recognised power of governance (especially regarding to ownership) should be closely aligned as much as possible. I believe that liberal democracy as a form of governance should be dismantled in favor of more elitist or autocratic forms of governance, especially based on wealth, for the benefits of the corporate kingdom’s economy. Think of Thaksin Shinawatra (the former CEO of ShinCorp) being crowned as the King of Thailand and you’ll get what I mean.
Free Trade
- I am in favor of Free Trade aka Economic Globalization. High tariffs and Autarky only hurt the country’s economy than it helps. Autarky can cause economic delay, starvation, and wars. Free Trade allows small countries to gain access on foreign products with higher qualities, and also preserves every nations’ political independence from wars. In order for a country’s economy to be successful, a country should be very permissive on free trade, which allows goods to be exchanged with very few to no restrictions, whether on local, regional, or global levels. I am in favor of free trade with international market economies for resources that can develop the country’s economy.
Georgism
- I consider myself as a Georgist, the one who actually believes in what Henry George believed in, unlike social democrats, mutualists, distributists, socialists, or whatever, who claim that georgism is anticapitalist or leftist economic theory. I’ll tell you a thing about it. First of all, despite the common misconception, georgism doesn't simply consist of an economy applying unimproved land value taxation. Rather, georgism is a movement of tax abolitionism, perceiving forms of governmental funding such as income tax or sales tax to be tyrannical, both on an economic level due to theft, and on a privacy level, many of those taxes (Called "deadweight taxation") requiring the government to have important knowledge over your job and spending habits. Instead, classical georgism advocates for an universal levy on the market value of owned soil, including natural resources, as neither has been produced by the owner, it is unfair to let them profit from it, only allowing profit to come from the ulterior improvements (Such as buildings or refining) done by the land owner. This form of tax has many benefits, such as:
- 1. No deadweight loss (Difference between production and actual consumption of goods and services).
- 2. Incentivizing efficient usage of land and resources, development, doing more while owning less.
- 3. Proceeding to a flat, yet naturally progressive levy, as the rich who appropriate more area have to pay more.
- 4. Easing up pre-existing property taxes on both improved urban land and rural agrarian ground, instead weighting more on non-used surface.
- 5. Stable governmental income, as the amount and value of land in a defined territory doesn't change with time.
- 1. No deadweight loss (Difference between production and actual consumption of goods and services).
- It is important to note that georgism is not an ideology opposing landlords, nor promoting communal access to land, but solely a system aiming to make land exchange responsible, fair and efficient. In fact, actions such as eminent domain or city planning would be discouraged, as it impairs healthy and free trade of plots. As such, ideologies that want collective control of the land are not georgism, if not straight up opposed to it.
Laissez-Faire
- I support laissez-faire economy, free banking and bringing back the Gold Standard, as I align myself with certain thinkers of the Austrian School of Economics, such as Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Friedrich August von Hayek, or Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The free markets will always be with us, as excessive economic regulations and planning cause more harm than good for the economy, as innovations are more likely to have high quality in the market economies. The Central Banks shouldn’t have a large say in the economics. The Central Bank only defends monopolies, and the fiat currency is a tool for the government to control the economy especially Keynesians, because the government prints fiat money such as banknotes, which cause the fiat currency to lose their values each year, causing inflation and net deficit. I am supportive of the competitive crypto-currencies based on the Gold Standard because to make the government stop bossing around with the economy, privatization of currencies is necessary, as what Friedrich August von Hayek said about it. Taxation is theft, and people shouldn’t pay unnecessary taxes (excluding the land value tax), which can hurt the economy in long term and gives the too much of a say. The government should be fiscally responsible so that the country won’t be drown in debt. In short, I support the single-tax system in order to be fiscally responsible without the government wasting taxpayers’ money irresponsibly.
Pigouvianism
- I would consider myself as a firm supporter of the Pigouvian tax, as Pigouvian taxes address market failures that occur when private decision-making does not take into account the external costs imposed on society. By taxing activities that generate negative externalities, these taxes correct the market's failure to allocate resources efficiently. Pigouvian taxes encourage economic agents (individuals and firms) to consider the full social cost of their actions when making decisions. This leads to a more efficient allocation of resources as individuals and firms adjust their behavior to minimize the negative externalities. The primary benefit of Pigouvian taxes is their potential to reduce or eliminate negative externalities. When the cost of harmful activities is higher due to taxation, individuals and firms are incentivized to consume or produce less of the goods or services causing harm. Pigouvian taxes are commonly used to address environmental externalities. For example, carbon taxes aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. By making polluting activities more expensive, these taxes encourage the adoption of cleaner technologies and practices. Pigouvian taxes can incentivize innovation in cleaner and more environmentally friendly technologies and practices, as firms seek ways to reduce their tax liability. By reducing negative externalities, Pigouvian taxes can contribute to an improved quality of life for individuals by mitigating the adverse effects of pollution, congestion, and other external costs. Pigouvian taxes can be structured in a way that minimizes their regressive impact on low-income individuals and provides social safety nets or rebates to offset any disproportionate burden. Pigouvian taxes can be tailored to address specific externalities and can be adjusted over time as conditions change or as society's understanding of external costs evolves.
Politics
Anti-Idpol
- I am critical of identity politics and I believe that it is a form of tribalism that can be harmful to society. One of the strongest arguments against identity politics from my perspective is that it creates divisions within society and leads to an emphasis on group identity over individual identity. This can lead to a breakdown in social cohesion and a lack of trust between different groups. In my view, this can ultimately lead to conflict and instability. Another argument against identity politics from my perspective is that it encourages people to view themselves as victims or oppressors based on their group identity. This can lead to a sense of entitlement or resentment that is not necessarily based on merit or individual achievement. I believe that this can lead to a culture of victimhood that undermines personal responsibility and accountability. Finally, I argue that identity politics is often based on a flawed understanding of history and society. I believe that it oversimplifies complex social and historical dynamics and ignores the role of individual agency and choice. I argue that identity politics is a form of reductionism that fails to take into account the complexity and diversity of human experience.
Classical International Law
- I envision for a return of the classical international law, as it recognized the existence of sovereign states as the primary actors in the international system. These states were considered independent entities with the authority to govern their territories and conduct foreign relations. Much of classical international law was based on customary practices that had developed over time. These customs included rules and norms related to diplomacy, trade, warfare, and territorial sovereignty. These practices were not always codified in written agreements but were widely recognized and followed. States often entered into bilateral treaties with one another to formalize specific agreements and alliances. These treaties covered a wide range of topics, including trade, border disputes, military alliances, and diplomatic relations. Treaties were typically negotiated and ratified by the sovereign rulers of the states involved. Diplomacy played a crucial role in classical international law. States established diplomatic relations through the exchange of ambassadors and envoys. Diplomats were responsible for conducting negotiations, conveying messages, and representing their states' interests abroad. The principle of territorial sovereignty was emerging, emphasizing that each state had exclusive authority over its territory. States were generally expected to respect the territorial integrity of other states and refrain from interference in their domestic affairs. Disputes between states were often resolved through diplomatic negotiations, arbitration, or, in some cases, war. Diplomats and envoys were instrumental in mediating disputes and seeking peaceful resolutions. The balance of power was a central concept in classical international relations. States sought to maintain a balance of power to prevent any single state from becoming too dominant and threatening the stability of the region. This often involved forming alliances and coalitions.
Crypto-Governance
- I advocate for a return to a monarchical system of governance, where a sovereign entity, often referred to as a "Patch" or "corporate state," acts as the owner of a territory. This sovereign entity functions similarly to a corporation, and the leader is often likened to a CEO or a board of directors. I envision a governance that works like a large privatized business. The sovereign entity that owns the territory operates it as a for-profit enterprise, focusing on maintaining order, security, and providing services efficiently. I place a strong emphasis on the rule of law, with laws and regulations being consistently enforced to provide predictability and stability. I favor technocratic and meritocratic forms of governance, where leaders are chosen based on their expertise and ability to manage the territory effectively.
Exit-oriented Politics
- I place a strong emphasis on the concept of "exit" over "voice." Citizens or residents are considered customers of the Patch and can choose to "exit" by switching their allegiance or citizenship to another Patch if they are dissatisfied. This competition among Patches is believed to create an incentive for better governance. After all, as a Hoppean myself, I am against the concept of democracy that put us into majoritarian tyranny via zombie politics, therefore, I am fully against things like the parliament, political parties, or populism.
Freedom of Religion
- I support the separation of the state and religions (as well as the separation of information and security), as religious organizations lobbying with the state never ends well. Everyone should be free to worship any religions and beliefs. Both theocracies and countries with state atheism are equally tyrannical as religious leaders don’t make good political leaders as this has been proven in history that focusing too much on religions hinder the technological progress, while countries with state atheism only prop up cults of personalities as the ex-communist states have proven about that.
Patchwork
- I support the concept of Mencius Moldbug's idea of a "Patchwork" system. It is a concept for a society structure that is made up of small, sovereign and competitive city-states or "sovereign corporations". Each city-state or corporation would have its own unique set of laws, customs, and political systems, and citizens would be free to choose which city-state they want to live in based on which set of principles and values they align with. Citizens would be free to move between these city-states or sovereign corporations, and the competition between these entities would drive innovation and efficiency, as citizens would be able to vote with their feet and move to a more desirable sovereign corporation if their current one was not meeting their needs. The Patchwork system acknowledges that people often have very different and even opposing visions of how society should be structured, and instead of trying to impose one vision of society upon everyone, the Patchwork system seeks to create a diverse and competitive marketplace of societal structures. In a Patchwork system, these city-states or sovereign corporations would be ruled by for-profit companies, which would be responsible for providing essential services such as security, infrastructure, and welfare. These companies would compete with each other for consumers, and citizens would vote with their wallets or feet, choosing to live in a sovereign corporation whose system of government and values align with their own. The competition between these entities would drive innovation and efficiency and force them to continually improve their services to attract and retain citizens.
Post-Libertarianism
- I align myself with certain post-libertarian thinkers, as I know that libertarian parties in electoral politics will never win elections. In praxis, it can go into two ways, one is that I’ll wait until the resentment of the current liberal democracy goes to the breaking point, or second, the King abolishes the entire parliament in favor of returning to absolute monarchy. Thus, I am in favor of increasing the funding of the police, while treating them as corporate-owned guards to enhance the efficiency of the police force. The police should exist to enforce the law to protect the citizens from having their liberty stripped by criminals and ensure that the NAP will be protected. The police should have the rights to fight against domestic terrorists like Antifa or the Alt-Right militia. I am supportive of the concept of free speech. It is necessary for an individual to have freedom to express his or her opinions. However, extremists and political demagogues such as communists, fascists, nationalists, liberals, or populists should not be able to take power in the government, as democracy will be completely abolished under a post-libertarian state.
Royalism
- I support an aristocratic or absolute monarchy as a form of government that is based on the model of the medieval Ayutthayan Kingdom. The basic idea behind this form of government is that the monarch holds absolute power, but this power is decentralized across a number of different regions or principalities within the kingdom. Under this kind of system, the monarch would hold ultimate power and decision-making authority, but would grant significant autonomy to local nobles or lords within his kingdom. These nobles would be responsible for governing their own territories and ensuring order and stability within their own local communities. In exchange for this autonomy, the local nobles would be required to pay taxes and provide military support to the king, as well as to maintain law and order within their own territories. This system allowed for greater flexibility and responsiveness to local needs and concerns, while still ensuring a strong central authority and the ability to mobilize resources quickly in times of crisis. Overall, while the specifics of how a medieval decentralized absolute monarchy would work varied depending on the time and place, it can be seen as a system that sought to balance the benefits of local autonomy with the need for strong central authority and unity. Although an idea of a Monarch-CEO running the country isn’t a bad idea, as the state will be able to make profits with the Joint-Stock Enterprises and Corporation to increase the state fundings in exchange for the population to pay much lower taxes in form of a voluntary one. A Monarch-CEO can be either from the Chakri Dynasty or not based on political circumstances, and succession laws will be based on merit or enterprise, the next Monarch-CEO will be elected by the nobles or aristocrats, although an heir of the previous Monarch-CEO is eligible as a candidate for the next Monarch-CEO.
Philosophy
Accelerationism
- Accelerationism, as what I understand, has good amounts of misconceptions, such as “accelerating to the thing’s breaking points”, or “when technology goes faster”, or whatever Siegetards think it is. Rather, I view accelerationism as the thing that begins with an acknowledgment of the transformative power of capitalism and its ability to generate rapid technological and social change. Accelerationism is based on post-structuralist and Deleuzian philosophy to deconstruct established categories, institutions, and hierarchies. I’d align myself with certain thinkers like Nick Land, Matt Colquhoun, or Mark Fisher, whose philosophies are rooted from the CCRU. I argue that capitalism has an inherent tendency to accelerate these processes. I am interested in the concept of the technological singularity, a hypothetical point in the future where technological progress accelerates exponentially, leading to profound and unpredictable changes in human society. I advocate for de-territorialization, which involves breaking down fixed boundaries and identities. Accelerationism does not necessarily involve resisting or opposing capitalism. Instead, it seeks to intensify and accelerate capitalist dynamics, with the belief that doing so will lead to a point of rupture or transformation.
Antihumanism
- Humanism is based on an unrealistic view of human nature, as I argue that Humanism assumes that humans are inherently rational, moral, and cooperative, which is not supported by empirical evidence. According to me, humans are actually driven by irrational desires and emotions, and are often violent and selfish. Therefore, the Humanist project of improving society through education and moral enlightenment is doomed to fail. Humanism is a secular religion, as I claim that Humanism has replaced traditional religions as the dominant worldview in modern societies. I argue that Humanism has its own set of dogmas, such as the belief in progress, equality, and democracy, which are taken as articles of faith and are not subject to empirical testing or rational scrutiny. Humanism is responsible for the decline of classical civilization, as I attribute many of the problems of modern society, such as political polarization, social unrest, and cultural decline, to the influence of Humanism. I argue that Humanism has led to the erosion of traditional institutions and values, and has created a society that is fragmented, atomized, and lacking in social cohesion. Humanism is incompatible with modern science and technology, as I suggest that Humanism's focus on humanistic values and goals is incompatible with the pursuit of objective knowledge and technological progress. I argue that Humanism has led to a "softening" of the sciences, as researchers are more concerned with the social and ethical implications of their work than with advancing scientific knowledge for its own sake.
Cosmicism
- I believe in cosmicism or Lovecraftianism, as I believe that the universe is vast, indifferent, and largely unaware of humanity's existence. In Lovecraft's stories, cosmic forces and beings are often beyond human understanding and are indifferent or hostile to human concerns. Cosmicism often evokes a sense of existential dread and cosmic horror. It explores the idea that the realization of humanity's insignificance in the grand scheme of the cosmos can lead to existential despair. Lovecraft's stories feature otherworldly beings, such as the Great Old Ones and Outer Gods, that defy human understanding. These entities exist beyond the limits of human knowledge and often drive humans to madness when encountered. I reject anthropocentrism—the belief that humanity is the central or most significant entity in the universe. Instead, I portray humans as insignificant in the face of cosmic forces. I often emphasize that some truths about the cosmos are unknowable or beyond human comprehension. Attempts to understand the true nature of the universe may lead to madness or a loss of sanity. Lovecraft's stories use the fear of the unknown and the incomprehensible as central elements of horror. The fear of what lies beyond human understanding is a key component of cosmic horror.
Individualism
- My beliefs on individualism are centered around the concept of the "will to power" by Friedrich Nietzsche. I believe that individuals possess a fundamental drive or will to assert their own individuality and exercise their power and creativity. This concept encourages individuals to overcome obstacles and assert their own values and desires. I call for a reevaluation and transvaluation of traditional moral and social values. I believe that many conventional values, such as humility and selflessness, were products of slave morality and hindered the development of the individual. I encourage individuals to question and redefine their values based on their own experiences and desires. I introduce the idea of the "Übermensch" to you, which represents an individual who transcends conventional morality and societal norms. The Übermensch creates their own values and lives according to their own will to power, free from the constraints of herd mentality. I strongly criticize herd mentality, which I see as a conformist and herd-like behavior that stifles individual creativity and authenticity. I encourage individuals to break free from the influence of the herd and think independently. I advocate for an acceptance of one's fate, including both the positive and negative aspects of life. Embracing one's fate is an essential aspect of individualism and personal growth. I propose the idea of eternal recurrence, which asks individuals to imagine that they must relive their lives in an endless cycle. This concept encourages individuals to live their lives in such a way that they would be willing to relive them for all eternity, emphasizing the importance of personal authenticity and self-expression. Individualism celebrates the creative expression of the self. Individuals are encouraged to explore their unique talents, passions, and desires and to express themselves authentically. I am critical of traditional religious and moral systems, which I see as repressive and inhibiting of individual growth. I call for a "revaluation of all values" to break free from these constraints. I celebrate the Dionysian spirit, which represents passion, ecstasy, and the embrace of life's primal and instinctual aspects. This celebration of the irrational and emotional aspects of life contrasts with the Apollonian, which represents order and rationality. Individualism places a significant emphasis on individual responsibility for one's life and actions. It encourages individuals to take ownership of their choices and to actively shape their own destinies.
Materialism
- I’d say that I am pretty much a materialist in terms of metaphysical belief. I emphasize the importance of excess and wastefulness as fundamental aspects of material existence. I argue that human life is marked by an excess of energy and desire that cannot be fully channeled into productive or rational activities. This excess energy, I contend, finds expression in various forms of unproductive and often taboo behaviors, such as orgies, destruction, and even war. I’m aligned with George Bataille's materialism, which is often described as "base materialism" or "base matter." I am interested in the material aspects of life that are typically considered vulgar, taboo, or "base," such as bodily functions, sexual desire, and bodily fluids. I argue that these aspects of material existence are neglected or suppressed by traditional materialism. I explore the relationship between the sacred and the profane. I suggest that the sacred and the profane are intimately connected, and that the profane often contains elements of the sacred. For me, the sacred is associated with the irrational, the excessive, and the taboo, while the profane represents everyday, rational life. I reject the idea of utilitarian consumption and production as the primary drivers of human behavior. I contend that humans engage in non-utilitarian, wasteful activities that serve no practical purpose but fulfill deep-seated psychological and social needs.
Neoreactionaryism
- For those who don’t know about what the Dark Enlightenment is about, I’ll tell you, as I take massive influences from this philosophy, and consider myself as one of the proponents of the NRx. The Dark Enlightenment (or Neoreaction) is basically an anti-progressive, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and anti-egalitarian political or philosophical ideology, seeking to restore the old forms of governance and natural hierarchies. Neoreactionaries, like me, think that the government should be ruled by certain group of elites, who are superior to the masses. I take the influences of the NRx by reading certain thinkers and theories such as Mencius Moldbug/Curtis Yarvin’s blogs from Unqualified Reservations, or The Dark Enlightenment by Nick Land. I, as a rabid atheist, view that Christianity and its ethics have been the thing that gave roots to the Cathedral, which is neither a person nor an organization. Rather, the Cathedral is a term for a collective of what embodies the Enlightenment, including schools, universities, mass media, entertainment, and such, that promotes themselves as “secular” ideas.
Post-Structuralism
- I, as a post-structuralist, reject essentialism, the belief in fixed, inherent, or universal qualities or meanings. I argue that essentialist notions of identity, truth, and meaning are socially constructed and contingent, rather than fixed and natural. I view language as a central focus of post-structuralism. I argue that language is not a transparent medium for conveying meaning but is, in itself, a complex and contingent system of signs and symbols. Language shapes our understanding of reality and is intertwined with power dynamics. Deconstruction is a key method associated with post-structuralism, developed by philosopher Jacques Derrida. It involves closely analyzing texts to uncover the inherent contradictions, hierarchies, and ambiguities within them. Deconstruction aims to reveal how language constructs meaning and how it can be deconstructed to challenge conventional interpretations. I examine the relationship between power and discourse, emphasizing that knowledge and language are intertwined with power dynamics. They explore how language and discourse can be used to maintain or challenge social hierarchies and ideologies. I, as a Post-structuralist, question traditional notions of the stable and unified self. I argue that subjectivity is fragmented and multiple, shaped by social, cultural, and historical forces. Identity is seen as fluid and contingent rather than fixed. I emphasize the importance of difference and alterity—the recognition of otherness and diversity. They challenge binary oppositions and dualistic thinking, seeking to disrupt hierarchies and reveal the complexities of human experience. I explore the intertextuality of texts, emphasizing that texts are not isolated but are interconnected with other texts and discourses. Understanding a text requires considering its relationships with other texts and contexts. I acknowledge the significance of historical and cultural context in shaping meaning and interpretation. Texts and discourses are situated within specific historical, social, and political contexts that influence their meaning. I reject foundationalism, which seeks to establish firm foundations for knowledge and truth. Instead, it highlights the contingency and instability of knowledge and challenges the idea of objective foundations. I consider questions of agency and ethics in relation to language and power. I explore how individuals and communities can engage critically with discourse to challenge oppressive structures and promote social change. I often adopt an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on insights from philosophy, literary theory, sociology, anthropology, and other fields to examine the complexities of language, culture, and society.
Technological Determinism
- Well, atleast Marx got something right, I guess? Let’s get started. I, as a technological determinist, argue that technological advancements have a profound and often deterministic impact on society and culture. I believe that changes in technology drive and shape social and cultural transformations. I generally assume that technological progress is inevitable and that it follows a linear trajectory of improvement. I often view technological development as a natural and unstoppable force. According to me, technology has a degree of autonomy, meaning that it can develop independently of human intentions or control. In this view, technology follows its own logic and evolution. I argue that technology influences human behavior and shapes social practices. They believe that the introduction of new technologies can lead to changes in how people work, communicate, and interact. Technology is seen as a catalyst for cultural and structural changes within societies. It can disrupt established norms and institutions, leading to the emergence of new social orders and practices. I propose the existence of technological imperatives, which are pressures or mandates that drive societies to adopt and adapt to new technologies. These imperatives are often seen as external forces compelling change. I emphasize the role of innovation as a primary driver of societal transformation. They argue that technological innovations, such as the printing press or the internet, have had profound and often unpredictable effects on society. I study how technologies are adopted and diffused within societies. They examine the impact of technology on various social, economic, and cultural aspects of different communities. Some proponents of technological determinism, including me, use the concept of technological paradigms to explain how different eras are characterized by dominant technologies that shape the culture and economy of those times. I am critical of the notion of human agency and argue that individual or collective human actions have limited influence on the course of technological development.
My Political Journey
| Name | Time | Ideologies |
|---|---|---|
 Apolitical Phase |
200?-2018 |  +  + 
|
 Thaksinist Phase |
2018-2019 |  +  + 
|
 3rd Way Dengist Phase |
2019-2020 |  + + 
|
 Sam Kib Phase |
2020-2021 |  +  + 
|
 Neoconservative Populist Phase aka First Nesanel Thought |
2021-2022 |  +  + 
|
 Paleolibertarian Phase aka Second Nesanel Thought |
2022-2022 |  +  + 
|
| Neo-Phibunist Phase aka Third Nesanel Thought |
2022-2023 |  + + 
|
| Neocameralist Phase aka Knyaz Nesanel Ideology |
2023- | + +
|
Relationships
Note that this is my opinion on ideologies, not personalities, so I’ll only analyze your ideologies.
Template (Reserved for inserting views on Self-inserts)
[Reserved] (////)
- W.I.P.
Put your ideology and the set of ideologies you believe in below here, if you want to be added into the relations.
For Example:
Knyaz Nesanel Ideology (
/
/
/
/
)
Now put yours below here.
Brazilian Liberalism (
/
/
/
/
)
Post-Calculustism (
/
/
//
)
Meowxism (
/
/
/
/
)
Naive Majoritarians (Reserved for Democrats and Non-Planned Economy Socialists)
Hoodism (
/
/
/
/
)
- Ah, you seem to be a standard left-libertarian. Claiming to stand for liberty, but also support populism, democracy, humanism, socialism, and also nationalism, all which are rooted from herd morality and religion. Well, atleast I can admire your support for separatism especially from the United States.
Control Freaks (Reserved for Paternalists who restrict the individuals from facing their consequences)
Pragmatic 16384ism (
/
/
/
/
)
- It seems like you have become skeptical towards my new direction, and I can say the same to you. First of all, your belief on Christian moralism is antithetical to my Nietzschean philosophical views as Christianity breeds slave morality. Secondly, your focus on identity politics from the Right, like from the Left, is cringeworthy, as it reduces individuals into nothing but part of conformity rather than themselves. Also, the Third Positionism is also vile, even though you’re not as economically radical as fascists, but the state interfering on the economy (rather than on the land) will always backfire, even if you want to regulate the markets for conservative or nationalist reasons rather than for the sake of utilitarianism. Perhaps be less focused on idpol and I’ll like your ideology more.
Insecure Collectivists (Reserved for Hardcore Socialists and Nationalists)
.png){kind=small}
Neo-Majapahitism (
/
/
//
)
- Ah, my old friend. I think I have made a criticism towards your ideology before, and it may not change that much. Atleast you have fully embraced absolutism and ditched populism. But on the other hands, problems like your extreme cultural conservatism, extreme nationalism, or economic overregulation need to be ditched away because a coercive society doesn’t last forever even if you try so hard to suppress individuals who oppose your ideals by coercion. I can give you one advice: If you embrace the technocapital pill and be less coercive, your dream for your Neo-Majapahit Empire will become real.
Unproductive Tree Huggers (Reserved for Bioconservatives and Anti-Tech Environmentalists)
[Reserved] (////)
- W.I.P.
Spooky Ultraprogressives (Reserved for Revolutionary Progressives and Intersectionalists)
[Reserved] (////)
- W.I.P.
Lawless Savages (Reserved for Anarchists of any types)
[Reserved] (////)
- W.I.P.
Vanguards of the Future (Reserved for self-inserts deemed excellent for Darth Nesanel Ideology)
Neo-Optimateism (
//
/
/
)
- We basically have a lot of things in common, such as corporatocracy, laissez-faire economy, or technological determinism, except you’re ten times more violent than me.
Neo-Erissianism (
/
/
/
/
)
- You are basically me without the NRx stuffs. The only bad parts of your ideology are world federalism, hedonism, and multiculturalism I guess.
Unclassifiable (Reserved for unclassifiable self-inserts)
Chaotic Oddo Thought (
/
/
/
/
)
- This ideology is very confusing to me, it seems like you’re trying to do a weird mix of both metaphysics and politics at the same time. I have no comments or ideas to put you in any classifications.