Baxist Manifesto

Baxist Manifesto is my manifesto. My ideology is  Baxism. You can comment here about this.

Introduction

For years, revolutionaries have made several mistakes, but the biggest one was turning capitalist. The entire world has become capitalist. Is there another option? Yes! What is that option? I would like to say that this book offers a solution, but I don't like lying too much. A “solution,” you could say, would be Directed Socialism, but it’s just theory.

The Folkish Syndicalism of Alstūd and Fargoth, but it's very traditionalist, and I’m looking for huge social changes.

This manifesto will only talk about my boring ideas and about my homeland, Chile, and how its problems could be “resolved.” I remember creating with my friend Rodrigo the National-Labourism, but at that time, we knew nothing about economics and believed in a synthesis between social democracy and strasserism unironically.

Let this manifesto be my garbage in a can.

Doctor Bax

The National Revolution

Part One

I am a Revolutionary Nationalist. I believe in a nationalist revolution where the proletarians, socialists, of course, rebel against the capitalists. This is utopian because Chile is a capitalist state where the proletarians are mistreated and continue to want to be mistreated. Just as Daniel Sansón once said: “The poor are like dogs: they guard the mansion and sleep outside.” Sansón was right: the poor are like dogs who unconditionally care for their masters.

The damned bourgeoisie robs us, and the proletarians are blind to it. Proletarians are blindfolded. When a proletarian removes the blindfold and rebels, they end up in prison. We urgently need a nationalist revolution similar to that of the Jacobins, but Marxist and with socialism.

These ideas make me utopian and idealistic. I am not very pragmatic, but I am more realistic because, even though I consider myself optimistic, I live entirely in pessimism: I hate my life; I want to rebel, and I can’t. It might not be pessimism but fatalism.

See? I’m crazy: I just changed the topic easily. I look in both directions, I always change. That makes me contradictory. I can say yes to something once and no to the same thing later.

But well, continuing with the topic, the proletarian must rebel in a nationalist way. But how are they going to rebel if, for example, on September 4, 2022, they voted against a constitution that guaranteed bread, housing, and water? That’s the problem with the proletarians: they are blind.

Moreover, the left formed a coalition for the Rechazo. That shows how treacherous the current left is, only stealing and lying, just like the right. They are all rats and do not understand the proletarian.

But let’s leave the revolutionary and nationalist idea for later, as I will now criticize everything from the comfort of my chair.

Critique of everything

Enlightenment

The Enlightenment is the most critiquable thing imaginable, not because of the Jacobins, but due to some serious issues, like the desire to know everything. Although I am an Enlightenment thinker, it doesn’t mean I defend it wholeheartedly.

Damn Enlightenment thinkers, without them, we wouldn’t have Rousseau, my idol!

But not everything in the Enlightenment is bad; there are some good ideas—though few—like Rousseau’s ideals. Even though I see flaws in Rousseau, that’s why I consider myself “Post-Rousseauian”.

I love reason, but it’s wrong to always be right. One can think, but one must think well! If one thinks, they shouldn’t feel superior to others. If one thinks—you can think however you want—they should be open to others’ ideas. That’s what I criticize about the Enlightenment because both Counter-Enlightenment and Enlightenment try to impose something on you. That’s why I like Romanticism, even though it is, well, Counter-Enlightenment, Romanticism is still good. I like Romanticism, but there are points about it that I must criticize, and I will, even though I don’t fully understand Romanticism.

Fake Progressivism

The problem with the current so-called “progressives” is that they only seek technological progress, believing that technological progress is linked to social progress, which is not the case and never will be. A transhumanist who never reasons, does not listen, and is deaf to reality will never truly love their species. No matter how much a transhumanist may want to, they can never love humanity. It is impossible to want to remain human if you are a transhumanist. But why do I use transhumanists as an example? Well, because my friend Dokev is a transhumanist. Just as Dokev said:

“But, Bax; it is possible to love both nature and machines.”

Why do I mention this phrase? Because it illustrates the ideas of current “progressives” who seek technological progress. Current “progressives” are liars.

Furthermore, when I wrote my book on the Ultimate Ideal and explained it to Dokev, he said to me:

“Are you telling me that if we take a prosthesis away from a disabled person, it would be progress?”

That shows that both he and current “progressives” only misinterpret what is said to them. Industrialization is not bad; we just need to control it.

That is my criticism of current “progressives”. Thank you very much to anyone who has read this.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Consider Jean-Jacques Rousseau as my greatest influence, but I notice his errors, such as his ideas about women and their education. That’s why I consider myself Post-Rousseauian, as I reinterpret and “modernize” Rousseau.

From Rousseau, I extract the following ideas:

1. Humans are naturally good and are becoming corrupted.
2. Humans, by nature, share two things with animals: goodness and empathy.
3. Human is born free and must continue to live free.

Additionally, I believe that humans are not becoming corrupted by science and the arts but rather due to massive industrialization. Therefore, I lean towards a somewhat ruralistic perspective. I think industrialization is acceptable but should be moderate to avoid job losses. Moreover, I advocate for a moderate ruralism, something more agrarian, but not extremely so. I want to take care of nature, the mother of all of us, which is dying because of its own children.

Not only that, but I also believe that animals are becoming corrupted just like humans. I think we should take care of animals because if we continue neglecting them, they will end up like us: unknowingly committing suicide.

Jews

Regarding Jews, I state that I only hate the bad Jews (the greedy, capitalists, Zionists, los Jefes, Don Francisco from Teletón, etc.) and not the good Jews (socialists, non-greedy individuals, anti-Zionists, revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg, Charlie Chaplin, Albert Einstein, etc.), as Jews themselves are not inherently bad, but supporting a capitalist state is. I want to make it clear that I only dislike the bad Jews.

Furthermore, I believe there are no good Jews, or at least not many. Why don’t I hate all Jews? Simple: because the good Jews recognize that creating a Jewish state would be an affront to God. It's not that I am a Christian or believe in a “god”. Additionally, Jews, at least in Chile, are mostly right-wing capitalists who would sell out their homeland.

I clarify that I do not endorse violence towards Jews.

Also, Los Jefes.

Opinions

•  Baxism - Hi.
• - hi.
• Neosyndicalism - Banger.