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 the questions and answers 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.
Georgism
Is Georgism really just about the Land Value Tax or hating on landlords? 
There are several common misconceptions about Georgism, which is a social and economic philosophy based on the ideas of Henry George. Here are a few of them:
1. “Georgism is all about land.” While land reform and the concept of a single tax on land value are central to Georgist principles, it is not solely focused on land. Georgism also addresses broader economic issues, such as wealth inequality, economic rent, and the role of government in managing natural resources.
2. “Georgism is synonymous with communism or socialism.” Georgism is often mistaken for being a form of socialism or communism due to its emphasis on wealth redistribution and public ownership of land values. However, Georgism is distinct from these ideologies. It promotes private ownership of personal property and productive capital while advocating for the community's collective ownership of land value.
3. “Georgism disregards the importance of other factors of production.” Critics sometimes argue that Georgism oversimplifies economic factors by placing excessive emphasis on land value. In reality, Georgism acknowledges the role of labor, entrepreneurship, and capital in wealth creation, but it argues that economic rent derived from land should be shared by the community rather than appropriated by private individuals.
4. “Georgism will lead to the stagnation of land use.” Another misconception is that Georgism discourages land development and improvement. However, Georgists argue that by taxing the unimproved value of land, it encourages efficient land use and discourages land speculation. It does not hinder productive use or discourage investment in land improvements.
5. “Georgism is impractical or utopian.” Critics sometimes claim that implementing Georgist policies would be difficult or unrealistic. However, Georgist principles have been applied to varying degrees in different places, such as in the form of land value taxation or land trust models. Moreover, Georgist ideas continue to influence debates on economic justice, land policy, and taxation.
Neoreaction
What exactly is Neoreaction? Care to explain what proponents of this ideology believe in?
Neoreactionaryism, often referred to as NRx, is a complex and multifaceted ideological movement that emerged in the early 21st century. It encompasses a range of thinkers and perspectives, including the ideas put forth by Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin (pen name Mencius Moldbug). While it's important to note that NRx lacks a unified and cohesive doctrine, there are some key themes and concepts associated with the movement:
1. Critique of democracy: Neoreactionary thinkers often critique democracy as a flawed and ineffective system of governance. They argue that democratic institutions and processes lead to inefficiencies, corruption, and the degradation of societal order.
2. Opposition to egalitarianism: Neoreactionaries reject the principle of egalitarianism, asserting that natural hierarchies and differences in abilities and talents exist among individuals. They believe that society should be structured around these hierarchies rather than striving for equal outcomes.
3. Critique of progress: Neoreactionaries tend to be skeptical of progressive social and cultural changes, favoring a return to traditional governance and institutions, such as Neocameralism. They emphasize the importance of stability, order, and authority in maintaining social cohesion.
4. Techno-commercialism: Neoreactionary thinkers, influenced by Silicon Valley and libertarianism, embrace the potential of technology and market forces to shape society. They often advocate for decentralized systems and view technological progress as a catalyst for societal transformation.
5. Dark Enlightenment: Neoreactionaries are often known as the "Dark Enlightenment" movement, which rejects the ideals of the Enlightenment and challenges the belief in progress, human perfectibility, and the universality of reason.
Neocameralism
What type of governance do Neoreactionaries like you believe in, since you guys are against our modern liberal democracy?
Neocameralism is a concept put forth by Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug) as a proposed alternative system of governance. In a Neocameralist state, the focus is on maximizing efficiency and effectiveness in governance through corporate-like structures. Here are some key aspects of a Neocameralist state:
1. Shareholder model: The state is structured similar to a corporation, with citizens considered as shareholders who hold tradable shares in the state. These shares provide voting rights and influence over decision-making processes.
2. Competitive governance: Neocameralism envisions multiple competing states, each with its own CEO or ruler. Citizens have the option to choose which state to be a shareholder in, and their choice is driven by the performance and benefits offered by the state.
3. Profit-oriented approach: The primary objective of the Neocameralist state is to generate profit and provide services efficiently. This is in contrast to traditional governance models that aim to serve the public interest.
4. Private enforcement: The state relies on private entities for law enforcement and security, often outsourcing these functions to specialized corporations. The emphasis is on effective and reliable enforcement mechanisms.
5. Technocratic decision-making: Neocameralism prioritizes technocratic expertise in decision-making processes, aiming to minimize the influence of politics and ideology. Decisions are based on data, analysis, and efficiency considerations.
Identity Politics
What are the Neoreactionary stances on Idpol? Are you sure that you’re different from the Alt-Right?
Neoreactionaries, as a diverse group with a range of perspectives, offer various critiques of identity politics from both the left and right. Some of the key critiques include:
1. Erosion of Individualism: Neoreactionaries often argue that identity politics, whether from the left or right, places undue emphasis on group identities at the expense of individual autonomy and personal responsibility. They contend that a focus on collective identity can undermine the principle of individualism and diminish personal agency.
2. Division and Tribalism: Neoreactionaries critique identity politics for exacerbating social divisions and fostering a sense of tribalism. They argue that identity-based movements tend to emphasize group differences rather than shared values, leading to heightened polarization and an erosion of social cohesion.
3. Victimhood Culture: Neoreactionaries criticize identity politics for perpetuating a victimhood culture, where individuals and groups compete for victim status and demand recognition and redress for perceived grievances. They argue that this can lead to a sense of entitlement, a lack of personal responsibility, and an overall negative impact on societal discourse and progress.
4. Essentialism and Determinism: Neoreactionaries often challenge the essentialist and deterministic tendencies within identity politics. They argue that reducing individuals to their group identities oversimplifies complex human experiences and ignores the diversity and individual agency within social groups.
5. Political Correctness and Censorship: Neoreactionaries criticize the stifling effect of identity politics on free speech and open discourse. They contend that the pressure to conform to politically correct narratives limits intellectual inquiry and inhibits the exploration of alternative perspectives.
6. Instrumentalization of Identity: Neoreactionaries argue that identity politics can be used as a tool for political manipulation and power dynamics. They suggest that some political actors exploit identity-based grievances to advance their own agendas or to maintain control over certain social groups.
Antihumanism
What is antihumanism? Is it the same as misanthropy or hating on humanity?
Antihumanism is a philosophical perspective that challenges or critiques the centrality and privileged status of the human being in various domains of thought, such as philosophy, social theory, and cultural studies. It is a broad term that encompasses different strands and interpretations, but at its core, antihumanism questions the traditional humanist assumptions and emphasizes alternative ways of understanding human existence and the world.
Antihumanism can take different forms and draw from various intellectual traditions, including poststructuralism, postmodernism, and critical theory. It often examines the social, political, and cultural implications of humanism, which prioritizes human agency, rationality, and the human subject as the primary focus of inquiry.
Some key features and themes associated with antihumanism include:
1. Critique of Anthropocentrism: Antihumanism challenges the anthropocentric worldview that places humans at the center of the universe and prioritizes human interests above all else. It seeks to decenter human subjectivity and highlight the interconnectedness and interdependencies between humans and non-human entities.
2. Deconstruction of Humanist Assumptions: Antihumanism questions the foundational assumptions of humanism, including notions of universal human nature, objective knowledge, and the idea of a stable, autonomous self. It seeks to expose the historical, cultural, and social construction of these concepts and reveal the power dynamics that shape human experience.
3. Exploration of Posthuman Possibilities: Antihumanism opens up possibilities for rethinking the boundaries of the human, considering the impact of technology, artificial intelligence, and other non-human entities on human existence. It engages with the idea of the posthuman, where the boundaries between human and non-human are blurred or transcended.
Misconceptions about antihumanism can arise from a limited understanding or misinterpretation of its aims and implications. Some common misconceptions include:
1. Rejection of All Human Values: Antihumanism does not necessarily entail a complete rejection of all human values or a denial of the significance of human existence. Rather, it seeks to critically examine and challenge dominant humanist assumptions while exploring alternative perspectives.
2. Disregard for Ethics and Morality: Antihumanism does not inherently advocate for a moral vacuum or the absence of ethical considerations. Instead, it invites a rethinking of ethical frameworks in light of non-human perspectives and interdependencies.
3. Anti-Progress or Anti-Human Well-being: Antihumanism does not inherently oppose progress or human well-being. Rather, it questions the narrow definition of progress and well-being rooted in humanist frameworks and encourages a broader understanding that considers the ecological, social, and non-human dimensions of flourishing.
Accelerationism
Can you explain to me what Landian accelerationism is about? I’m curious about Land’s views on acceleration.
Nick Land's accelerationism is a complex and multifaceted philosophical concept that has evolved over time. It emerged as a response to various social, political, and economic issues, challenging the limitations of traditional political ideologies and proposing a radical transformation of society. Land's accelerationism has been influential in contemporary philosophical and cultural discussions, and it can be understood in several key aspects:
1. Techno-Commercial Acceleration: One aspect of Land's accelerationism focuses on the acceleration of technological and economic forces. He emphasizes the transformative potential of advanced technologies, particularly in fields like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. Land sees these technological developments as disruptive forces that can reshape society and create new possibilities.
2. Capitalist Acceleration: Land also explores the dynamics of capitalism and its role in driving social transformation. He views capitalism as a powerful force of creative destruction, pushing societies toward constant innovation and increasing efficiency. This form of accelerationism suggests that embracing and intensifying the logic of capitalism can lead to radical social change.
3. Anti-Humanism and the Posthuman: Land's accelerationism challenges the anthropocentric worldview that places humans at the center of the universe. He explores the idea of the posthuman, where the boundaries between human and non-human entities become blurred or transcended. This perspective questions the traditional concept of human subjectivity and explores new forms of existence beyond the human.
4. The Outside and Unthinkable: Land's accelerationism also involves a speculative exploration of the "outside" of human consciousness and understanding. He delves into the idea of the "unthinkable," which represents the domain of the unknown and unknowable, suggesting that radical transformation lies beyond conventional human comprehension.
Patchwork
What exactly is “Patchwork” Moldbug talks about? Is it some kind of neo-feudalism?
"Patchwork" is a concept put forth by Curtis Yarvin, also known by his pseudonym "Mencius Moldbug," in his writings on political theory and governance.
In the context of Moldbug's writings, "Patchwork" refers to a proposal for a new system of governance based on competitive governance and decentralized city-states. The term "Patchwork" suggests a quilt-like arrangement where various jurisdictions or "patches" exist side by side, each operating as a sovereign entity with its own set of laws, policies, and governance structures.
Here are some key points and features of the Patchwork concept, as proposed by Moldbug:
1. Competitive Governance: Moldbug argues that traditional models of government, such as democracy and centralized nation-states, are inherently flawed and lead to inefficiencies and lack of accountability. Instead, he suggests introducing competition among different governing entities or city-states.
2. Sovereign City-States: In the Patchwork model, these city-states would function as sovereign entities, offering different packages of governance services to attract residents and businesses. Each city-state would have the authority to set its own rules and regulations, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of other patches.
3. Exit over Voice: Moldbug emphasizes the importance of exit options for individuals. If a person is dissatisfied with the governance of one city-state, they could simply move to another that aligns more closely with their preferences and values, rather than relying on traditional political mechanisms like voting (voice).
4. No More Monopoly on Violence: In a Patchwork system, the traditional monopoly on violence held by the state would be challenged. Instead of a single overarching state with a monopoly on force, different city-states would provide their own security and protection services, and residents could choose the level of security they desire.
5. Market Mechanisms: Moldbug views the Patchwork model as a way to introduce market forces into governance, fostering competition and innovation in how governance services are delivered.
Antimoralism
Why are you against secular humanism when you’re an atheist? Isn’t humanism a good thing for you?
Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher and cultural critic, had a complex and nuanced view of religion, including Christianity and secular humanism. While Nietzsche is often associated with the famous phrase "God is dead," his criticism of Christianity goes beyond its traditional form to encompass what he saw as its lingering influence in secular humanism and modern moral values.
Nietzsche's critique of secular humanism can be summarized in the following key points:
1. Legacy of Christian Morality: Nietzsche argued that Christianity's moral framework, particularly its emphasis on compassion, humility, and selflessness, deeply influenced Western culture. He believed that even as society moved away from traditional religious beliefs, the moral values rooted in Christianity persisted, shaping modern secular humanism.
2. Slave Morality vs. Master Morality: Nietzsche introduced the concept of "slave morality" and "master morality." He saw Christianity as the champion of slave morality, which he associated with weakness, self-denial, and resentment against those in power. In contrast, he admired the ancient Greeks and their "master morality," characterized by strength, nobility, and a pursuit of power.
3. Denial of Life's Affirmation: Nietzsche criticized both Christianity and secular humanism for their tendency to deny the affirmation of life. He saw them as advocating for otherworldly values, focusing on the afterlife or utopian ideals, which, according to Nietzsche, diminished the importance of living fully and authentically in the here and now.
4. Rejection of Individual Will to Power: Nietzsche emphasized the individual's will to power, a drive for self-realization and the fulfillment of one's potential. He argued that both Christianity and secular humanism tend to suppress this will to power in favor of conforming to societal norms and ideals.
5. Loss of the "Übermensch": Nietzsche's concept of the "Übermensch" or "Superman" represents an individual who surpasses conventional morality and traditional values to create their own path and values. He believed that Christianity's influence and the rise of secular humanism hindered the emergence of such extraordinary individuals.
Material Analysis
What are the differences between Marx’s views on material analysis of social conditions and Land’s, since both of them are materialists?
Nick Land's material analysis of social conditions differs significantly from Marx's analysis. While both Land and Marx engage with materialist perspectives and explore the influence of economic and social structures on human societies, their frameworks, objectives, and conclusions diverge substantially.
1. Capitalism: Marx's material analysis focuses primarily on capitalism as the dominant mode of production and its impact on class struggle. He argued that capitalism inherently produced contradictions between the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (working class), leading to historical class struggles and, eventually, the overthrow of capitalism. In contrast, Land's analysis incorporates aspects of capitalism but takes a different approach. He is often associated with accelerationism, a perspective that proposes accelerating technological and economic forces to bring about radical change. Land sees capitalism and technology as agents of intense transformation that can lead to new social configurations beyond traditional class structures.
2. Historical Materialism: Marx's historical materialism examines the development of societies through stages of economic organization, including primitive communism, feudalism, capitalism, and eventually, communism. He argues that historical progress is driven by changes in the productive forces and the resulting class struggles. Land's material analysis, while influenced by historical materialism, is more focused on future-oriented speculative thought. He is interested in exploring the potential of technology and capitalism to create new social orders beyond the confines of traditional historical stages.
3. Humanism: Marx's material analysis is rooted in a humanist perspective. He emphasizes the role of human agency in shaping history, particularly through class struggle and the pursuit of collective interests. Marx's vision centers on human emancipation and the establishment of a classless communist society. Land, on the other hand, challenges humanism and anthropocentrism. He explores the forces of technology, capital, and unconscious desires as powerful drivers of social change, often presenting a more non-human-centric and even anti-humanist perspective.
4. Teleology: Marx's analysis implies a teleological view of history, suggesting that historical development moves towards an eventual classless communist society. He sees communism as the resolution of class contradictions and the overcoming of alienation. In contrast, Land's analysis is often more speculative and open-ended. He engages in speculative thought experiments to explore potential future trajectories, often embracing the radical uncertainty and unpredictability of technological and economic transformations.
In summary, while both Marx and Land engage with materialist perspectives and analyze the influence of economic and social structures on society, their approaches and objectives are quite distinct. Marx's material analysis is grounded in historical materialism, class struggle, and humanist values, with the ultimate goal of human emancipation and a classless society. In contrast, Land's material analysis incorporates elements of capitalism and accelerationism, exploring the potential of technology and non-human forces to reshape society, often in speculative and non-human-centric ways.
Civilization
Can you debunk humanist views of civilization? Since you don’t think that humans are in control of civilization?
Certainly, I can provide some perspectives that an anti-humanist might use to critique or challenge humanist misconceptions about civilization. It's important to note that these perspectives are not universally accepted, and they reflect a particular philosophical viewpoint. Here are some arguments an anti-humanist might use:
1. Nature's Dominance: Anti-humanists might argue that humanism tends to elevate human beings above all other forms of life and downplays the role of nature in shaping civilizations. They could contend that civilizations are just one aspect of the broader natural world, subject to the same ecological laws and limitations as any other species.
2. Hubris and Overreach: Anti-humanists might critique humanism's focus on human potential and progress. They could argue that the belief in continuous advancement and control over the environment has led to ecological crises and the degradation of natural systems, highlighting the dangers of human hubris and overreach.
3. Ephemeral Nature of Civilization: From an anti-humanist perspective, civilizations could be seen as transient and fleeting in the grand scale of geological and cosmic time. Humanism's emphasis on the permanence and significance of human achievements might be seen as overstated.
4. Dehumanizing Consequences: Anti-humanists might argue that humanism's emphasis on the individual and human rights can sometimes lead to the exploitation of non-human entities and the environment. They could assert that this focus on individual well-being often overlooks the broader impacts on ecosystems.
5. Cultural Relativism: Anti-humanists could advocate for a more culturally relativistic approach, critiquing humanism's tendency to promote certain values and norms as universal. They might argue that civilizations have diverse belief systems, and a single humanist framework may not adequately encompass this diversity.
6.Non-Human Agents: An anti-humanist perspective might highlight the agency of non-human forces in shaping civilizations. For example, they could point out the influence of geography, climate, and natural resources on the rise and fall of societies, challenging the notion of human exceptionalism.
7. Emphasis on Death and Decay: Anti-humanists might draw attention to the inevitable decline and ultimate mortality of civilizations. They could critique humanism's avoidance of discussions about the impermanence of human creations.
8. Technological Determinism: Anti-humanists might challenge the assumption that technological progress is inherently positive. They could argue that the unchecked pursuit of technological advancement can lead to unintended consequences and ethical dilemmas.
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 Darth 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.
Naive Majoritarians (Reserved for Democrats and Non-Planned Economy Socialists)
[Reserved] (////)
- W.I.P.
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.