 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent LordCompost's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission. |
‟Through the heaven of civilization, the human being seeks to isolate himself from the world, to break its hostile power.”
– The Unique and Its Property,Max Stirner
Howdy, I'm 
LordCompost.
I am an 
Egoist, 
Pragmatist, 
Post-Civilisationist, 
Iconoclast, and 
Anti-Humanist.
I am influenced by a variety of schools, most notably by 
Post-Analytic Philosophy, 
Psychoanalysis, German 
Idealism & 
Romanticism, 
Political Nihilism, and by various 
Post-Structuralist thinkers.
Unlike what my influences describe, my thought is grounded not in Political Nihilism nor 
Egoist/Individualist Anarchism, but rather in a very broad pragmatic and 
post-modern interpretation of 
anti-civilization and post-civilization philosophy; seeing the subjects relation to the state as just another of the same phenomenon which underpins modern civilisation. I see 
civilisation, 
the state, 
capitalism, 
traditions, or any other 
contingent historical phenomenon, etc., as neither desirable nor regrettable; they are simply existent, and our relation to such phenomena underpins societal ills.
I see civilisation, capital, culture, ideology, etc., as part of a domesticating process through which individuals find themselves under subjectification. However, this does not create oppression by itself but rather leads to opportunities, social relations, and the possibility of fixity and ideological domination. My response to such domestication is simply the constant renegotiation of 
individuals, 
institutions, 
societies, etc., to themselves and their values through the questioning and revision of values as a form of decadence and pragmatism.
My Icons: (///
/
)
Summary
See my Philosophy page.
Beliefs
Civilisation
Civilisation is not dichotomous with 
primitive socities, rather both involve shared 
norms and values which are related to as 
sacred or objective. Civilisation is also not essentially 
centralised but can also be 
decentralised[1] Civilisation is merely an issue of scale; that is, "primitive" societies are only opposed to civilised ones purely in terms of population scale.
Thus, both forms of societies 
domesticate individuals, that is, they produce a conception of self-consciousness whereby groups come to know themselves through shared values and relations to certain objects, be they Gods or 
nature. This self-consciousness is then promoted, creating a split between those inside and those outside the shared conception; holy/sinner, citizen/immigrant or citizen/criminal, party/opposition, tribe/outsider, etc., allowing for social cohesion.
Lastly, neither society nor civilisation is good nor bad; rather, they equally allow for expression as well as oppression in terms of subjectivity, such as 
citizenship, family, or 
queer identity. Moreover, these forms of subjectivity, which humans cannot live without merely because being human is also such a subjectivity, promote oppression in the form of fixity or sacrality but also allow for free expression. Our relation to civilisation, and not civilisation itself, produces social ills.
Post-Civilisationism
Reaction and Decadence
Civics
W.I.P
Writings
Links to my Substack.
On Decline in Relation to Decadence
The Cultural Industrial Complex
Relations
CarrotsRppl2
How is 'The State and Its Property' illegitimate? If you truly held to the principle that property is individual protection, then isn't the state currently the most powerful entity that protects its property? As such, according to you, it is your perfect society already.
Bourgeoisie Destroyer
I am sure you have read something, but merely returning and subscribing to 'ancient' philosophy does not make one intelligent, nor does it advance any knowledge or let one overcome modern problems simply because thought has developed and overcome older philosophy.
Killer Kitty
Question: If politics was a net negative on your country would you overcome it and bring politics into its nullity? Or would you hold close to it and always remain bound to your highest truth? 'No,' you would say, 'politics cannot be done away with; it is necessary, it is fundamental, it is more important than us.' Liberalism, Fascism? Politics...
Kosciuszkovagr
No writings...
Xx godisfaithful xx
Your similarity to postmodern/post-anarchism with your rejection of an 'Arche' or grounding principle is fascinating. This is why I am surprised you disagree with postmodernism so much. However, in your thought, I find the assurance of human rights to be the primary ground of politics; it seems to be a slight contradiction?
HysteriaThought
It is quite strange that through all your insights and some I agree with quite earnestly, post-rationalism is a particular favourite; one then runs into your quite tame and sacred economics. Economic freedom is the same as 'religious freedom' - not freedom from the economy, but the freedom of the economy.
Anthony Bax
I am still yet to understand the existence of altruistic egoism. Where does Stirner oppose altruism? When egoists are social, supportive, associative, etc., why does this entail the conclusion that sharing is a moral ought, and that collectivisation is a sacred duty? It is alien to my will, something that can always be separated from the social ego.
StockMarketCrash
I appreciate the critique of capitalism; I, too, agree that it is a stifle of individuality and creativity. However, I do not support socialism for the same reasons. Additionally, anarchy, even as expression or lifestyle, is still a mode for me to exist within; why can I not act freely and have a me-ism? Why label it and put rules on what I can and can't do; if I idly protested and violently resisted at other times, shall I be shunned as false to the cause?
Borker
Who is the nation existing for? If it is for the nation, then it can do its own work to benefit itself; if it is for the people of that nation, then why are we supporting the nation and not the people? Additionally, if it is voluntary whether people identify with that nation, then it can hardly be said to be a universal shared value. If individuals stop identifying, they can hardly be said to oppose the nation's interests because they no longer accept the nation itself.
Weedium
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Also, please try to improve your writing skills.
Rocksmanylobsters
A collection is not synonymous with collectivism; one is the aggregate of individuals, or merely a multitude of them more so than a total, while the other remains an organisational principle of interests that relate individuals to a supposed shared value. In reality, individuals are connected into a 'collective' through a web of values. Ultimately, if any individual no longer valued what others valued, would you side with the individual or the multitude?
Weedman
A very consistent anarchist, but, also a very principled one; I do not oppose the forms of lifestyle that you propose, but I would, instead of 'living anarchy', much rather have my lifestyle without heed of laws, norms, religion, economics, etc., and have it 'said' that it is insurrectionary. Additionally, I certainly do not wish my life to be defined by abstract concepts imposed on me by society, such as soul or nature; much the same as you oppose essentialism in gender, humanism, politics, etc.,
Meadowsin
As I said in the comments on the insurrectionary communism page, I am yet to understand the necessity of communism, nor the denial of the proletariat for insurrection. If one wanted to constantly head to the 'what-can-be,' or in your and Stirner's words, the 'ideal,' something which, once it is here, is no longer ideal but real, and thus static, then why is the language (and theory) of the 'old-guard' still in power? Clearly, much like static fixity, reaction allows the revolution to realise itself by allowing individuals to become fully conscious of what the revolution stood for; it is a necessary step, but it is not the last step.
SkeletonJanitor
The obvious point of contention is simply that your picture of the state, economy, and even social relations is paternalistic in the traditional sense of the term. You believe, and not without justification, that the state (and not even you specifically) knows what is best for its subjects; it treats itself as the 'father'; it is paternal. Obviously, if it goes against the current grain, it is not necessary that it opposes individual interests, but it is difficult to tell without some community mechanism.
Pantheon
Now, you correctly surmise that automation and the abolition of labour in the economy are currently unsuitable simply because, well, beating on a dead horse, we produce more than we need and yet labour more than ever. We have more automation and efficiency, but we have less leisure time. Of course, people are scared about losing their jobs because we certainly do not have structures in place that will allow these people to live without labour. And yet, why is your system of economics required if the solution to your conundrum is just communism?
NeoxTheMonarchic
I have very little to go off, as I prefer not to judge an individual's ideology merely by influences. Thus, there are only a few sections that I can judge: Economics, Markets, Immigration, Conservatism, and Gender. Economics is by-the-by; it is just that, well, any market favours the accumulation of wealth, not just free ones. You then also support 'free market' socialism, so is it capitalism or free markets that lead to large corporations? The rest is just conservative/reactionary scare words intended to win merely by sophistic refutation (Ad Hominem).
Notes
Comments
LordCompost - Please comment here if you have questions.