Nuriskianism

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
Basic Information
Aliases	Feel Free to add your Insults here Nurul Iskandar Nurisk nurisk5 (discord tag (DMs open)) @Nurisk5 (twitter handle) Nermalisme Cringe Faggot Indognesian Cool opponent Left Quarkism Normal Pills Indonesian Nazbol 🤮ism Comrade Confederate Moderate Duginism Based Nationalist
Alignments	AuthLeft Culturally Syncretic Socialists Nationalists Communists
Ideological Influences
Influenced by	Heideggerianism Marxism Leninism National Bolshevism Pancasila Futurism Zizekianism Fourth Political Theory Guattarism Islam Nusantara Cultural Nationalism Multiculturalism Pan-Nationalism Traditionalism Ethnopluralism Guided Democracy Kosyginism
Ideological Information
Notable Theorists	Nurul “Nurisk” Iskandar (?-), Indonesia
Character Information
Song	Dekon

Nuriskianism is a thing.

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 force, 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.

You can also think of it kind of like Fire, Fire burns and roars, the more fires there are, they can ignite each other (as long as they have a supply of wood to fuel each other) as they engage in dialectics with each other. Problem with a continuation of this kind of dialectic is that eventually all will be merged into one and eventually the Flame will slowly burn out, this is what is happening with Liberalism as Liberalism assimilates it's enemies into itself and eventually births about Nihilism.

The Philosophy of Nick Land is correct in stating that Capitalism is a Nihilising force, hence why we care about achieving Multipolarity. Communism should then have to be Anti-Nihilist, problem is is that Communist philosophy is staunchly Materialist, whilst this is good as it allows us to be down to earth and face reality directly, it's bad when forming solutions.

Liberalism is a Positive Worldview with a Negative Praxis, Communism must be a Negative Worldview and a Positive Praxis.

Hence why the following Dugin Quote:

"If we free socialism from its materialist, atheist and Modernist features and if we reject the racist and narrow nationalist aspects of the Third way doctrines we arrive at a comepletely new kind of political ideology. We call it the Fourth Political Theory, or 4PT, (The first being liberalism, that we essentially challenge, the second being the classical form of communism, the third being national-socialism and fascism). Its elaboration starts from the point of intersection between different anti-liberal political theories of the past (namely communism and the Third way theories). So we arrive at the national-bolshevism that represents socialism without materialism, atheism, progressivism, and Modernism, as well as the Third way theories without racism and nationalism.

Alexander Dugin, Fourth Political Theory, pg. 205

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

The Original formulation of the Vanguard Party was as a Party of the most advanced sections of the Proletariat to guide the development of Socialism.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat emerges out of a Revolution in which the Proletariat are compiled into a Party, the Party is a collectivity of Proletarians.

The job of the Vanguard Party is the illumination of the path toward socialism, our Socialism will not be progressive in the liberal sense at all, our Socialism will be conservative, preserving the culture and traditions of the Indonesian people as well as generating culture through an Intellectual Elite within the Party, the Proletkult.

The Proletkult (Proletarskaya Kultura (Proletarian Culture)) will be the basis of the expansion of our National Culture by utilising both our past and present to construct a future that is Unnihilistic. Communism will be a revitalisation of the National and Ethnic spirits.

Our project is to revive Nasakom, as a replacement to Global Liberalism, Pancasila right now is in it's Liberal phase again, we need to change that if we are not to fall alongside the Liberal world. Whether we truly seize power or not is not necessarily our main focus anymore, but rather the waking up of the masses, we may as well play a backseat role take control of the State insidiously, de facto under our control but perhaps de jure, it is not.

The Communist Party had done this, it's hands were all over the Indonesian Government influencing it's politics left and right, we must understand that Revolution is unlikely in our current situation and thus we need to carefully assimilate the Indonesian State back to Nasakom, back to Guided Democracy, guided by the Proletkult and our Party, whether we do this through participation in activism or other means it does not matter, what we need is to win the Indonesian people in the Psychological front.

To quote a game:

Before you can truly shape the future, you must first possess the past. Assimilate our history, for it is your own.

Seth, Command and Conquer: Tiberian Dawn

Micropolitics of Guided Democracy

Previously we discussed why we need a Vanguard Party and Psychological Warfare is needed as well as Political Platonism. Here I'll get into the micropolitics of that.

Democracy is Popular Rule, it is the "Rule of the People". "The People" as I've said is not one homogenous mass, it's a large collective of individuals with varying interests and desires.

The struggle of politics is about the struggle to control these desires and interests for a particular desire and interest of a certain group of people. When we speak about "Democracy" and the struggles of Populism, we aren't talking about politics "by and of" but "for" the people, the fantasy that the people actually want them, which they have to work hard to realise that dream.

The Political Machines work overtime in order to secure their positions and claim as much territory as possible on the political mapping which at no point actually is by and of the people, but for the people. Parties are a mere Representation of a Simulacrum of the People's will when it finally supports the Party in it's fullest, it's a coping mechanism which for some reason is very effective (or not) at realising it's own desires for control.

Democracy strangely enough has never been "by and of the People", only "for" the People. Often when a Party gets in control of a government, their task after is to desensitise the People so that they do not get removed from the power. (Liberal) Democracy has never been Democratic except when the People all share the same "will".

Hence why Democracy must turn a blind eye to the Free Market of Ideas and and turn toward Guided Democracy, Vanguardist Democracy.

Democracy here has been truly manifested, where the People are no longer divided and truly are "The People". This Homogenisation is the sublation of all Political differences and the transformation of all Individuals into the Collective, there will be no "Free Market" of Ideas, only the National Backdrop and the People's interpretation of it.

Pancasila is a great example of this, Indonesians do not claim any other Ideology other than Pancasila (or so they say), but they do hold on to partisan politics, presidents in and presidents out. So called "flawed democracies" or "fake democracies" are actually the fullest expression of Democracy because if we allow the People to think without a National Ideology to interpret from, what you have is Not Democracy, but Anarchy.

It is Chaotic, "Chaos" means "Void" in Greek, the void of space is filled with many Planets and Solar Systems, it is a Multiplicity in the Macro sense, Macropolitics in contrast to "Micro" politics which is a Multiplicity of the small. Micropolitics investigates and creates multiplicities in the small scale, expanding from the smallest bits of the whole. Whilst Macropolitics is busy colonising other Solar Systems, Micropolitics concerns itself with the intricate details of the system and expanding upon it.

Guattari explains in "Everybody wants to be a Fascist" that we concern ourselves a lot about trying to get people "think correctly", as though there's something "objective" to thought, that we must "raise" class consciousness. We may talk all a bunch about Politics using Freudianism where the Proletariat actually wants X but is substituted for Y, but this is merely a cope.

Though I must admit, as a Communist, it pisses me off that people are Liberal. Indeed, the Proletariat are all Liberals, they've all been "duped" into Liberalism, hence why we must engage in a Psychological rewrite of the Proletariat, to "raise" class consciousness.

This Idea that the People must think "correctly" is nothing more than Totalitarianism, Liberals too are Totalitarian, the Open Society (more accurately, the Society of consensus) is a Society that is Totalitarian, there's no need to point at a Stalin figure or a Hitler figure in this society, the enemy are the people themselves, the ones who force others into having to think the same as the masses. This is what happens when you have a Society that rejects any sort of "common values" in the first place.

The very fact that we even embrace such a Totalitarian mindset isn’t because it was necessarily already imposed upon us, no no, but rather that through populistic struggles, the mindset of the people turned towards this Totalitarian Salafism which is how you birth Daesh. Daesh right now is the closest thing we have to raw Psychological Totalitarianism, Muslims were drawn across the world to fight for Daesh through the use of Propaganda, Daesh promised a Land of peace, faith, and justice based on their interpretation of Sharia.

This twisting of the Sharia of course should not be tolerated, but it goes to show how much an organisation can twist the narrative to create a no less organic organisation but yet still Totalitarian. Daesh started off as an irrelevant offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq which quickly grew into what it was in 2014 and dwindled until today. They didn’t have much to work with, but through clever opportunism they managed to consolidate enough support and from the right kinds of people no less to grow an army to be a threat to the free world.

"All [Totalitarian] meanings stem out of a composite representation of love and death, of Eros and Thanatos now made into one. [The Daesh Militants] were fighting for death, right up to and including the death of [Daesh]; the [Daesh Militants] agreed to follow along and meet their own destruction."

Felix Guattari, Chaosophy, pg. 168-169

This is reflected in many of Daesh’s Nasheeds, the major theme is the love of Death and the Sacrifice of oneself to shed blood for the sake of Allah. The Nasheed “For the Sake of Allah” even has a lyric that stated; “We are Men that love death just as you love your life, we’re the Soldiers that fight in the day and the night.”

This verse, Sang Hyang knows how much this attracted followers, but Al-Hayat media center certainly has so much grip upon the Individual that consumed it that, by itself, attracted them to fully prepare themselves to die for their Caliphate.

This Totalitarianism is truly Organic, truly coming from the bottom-up, this is not a bug in the Open Society, but a feature of the Open Society.

But how? Perhaps a consequence of a lack of Guidance? We know for certain that Totalitarianism is an organic movement and that it cannot be forced onto people (otherwise it would be a Dictatorship, not Totalitarianism), so what should we do?

The Libidinal investments that occur that form Totalitarian relationships occur from an investment of external pressures that are repressive and ever-encroaching as the Individual begins to become socially isolated and becomes an unstable concentration of desire. Ultimately this would eventually be released which causes the Individual to fall into a state of delirium. In this sense, the search for an immediate release of this would eventually lead to the Individual to seek out, within the Open Society an Ideology to attach themselves onto. He alone could not do anything, he needs a social group to become apart of in order for him to develop his own self, to become an Individual with a unique identity and purpose so that his life becomes organised, so that he may be groomed into becoming a certain kind of person rather than a disorganised unperson; a Daesh Militant, a Nazi, a Khmer Rouge Militant, and so forth.

"Freedom is always fraught with chaos, and is open for opportunities. Placed into the narrow framework of individuality, the amount of freedom becomes microscopic, and, ultimately, fictitious. [...] it is totalitarian and intolerant of differences and the implementation of a great will. It is only prepared to tolerate small people; it protects not so much the rights of man, but, rather, “the rights of a small man”. This “small man” can be allowed to do anything, but he, despite all his desire, will be able to do nothing. [...] Having left the limits of individuality, man can be crushed by the elements of life, by dangerous chaos. He may want to establish order. And this is entirely within his right – the right of a great man (“homo maximus”) – a real man of “Being and Time” (Martin Heidegger). And, like any order, this possible order, the coming order may be embodied in individual forms. Nonetheless, this is not individuality, but individuation; not empty rotations around that which is given and which is meaningless, but the execution of tasks as well as the taming of the restless and the exciting horizons of the will."

Alexander Dugin, Fourth Political Theory, pg. 48

In the Open Society, there are too many to count tendencies that one may choose to align themselves with, one may call themselves a Communist, a Liberal, a Fascist, perhaps a subgroup (Marxist-Leninist, Anarchist, Libertarian, Conservative, Nazi, Peronist, etc.); why can't we all just accept certain principles and develop ourselves from that?

As Indonesians, we know who we are, that we are Indonesian and that our values are those that align with Pancasila, anything else we reject, but this Pancasila that we have is open to interpretation, this is good as it allows Pancasila to adapt to the times, this is who we can run to when the world has fallen into a chaotic mess of political splinters. We accept Pancasila and it is time that we turn a blind-eye toward Ideo-moralist fighting amongst the lost and use what we could to rectify our house so that we may once again see the light of day. The Open Society has cursed the World with Chaos.

"The body without organs is like the cosmic egg, the giant molecule swarming with worms, bacilli, Lilliputian figures, animalcules, and homunculi, with their organization and their machines, minute strings, ropes, teeth, fingernails, levers and pulleys, catapults: thus in Schreber the millions of spermatazoids in the sunbeams, or the souls that lead a brief existence as little men on his body. Artaud says: this world of microbes, which is nothing more than coagulated nothingness."

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari , Anti-Oedipus, pg. 281

The Body w/o Organs as a philosophical concept is one that is meta-stable which would eventually desire to go towards a state of a Body w/ Organs, to reterritorialise back into something rather than nothing (Chaos = Void). This desire for self-reorganisation could not occur unless it is fertilised by an external entity acting as a Parental figure (Oedipalisation) into a system; family, village, tribe, tradition, ethnos, civilisation, nation, nation-state, capitalism, and imperialism. Perhaps that we should let this slide, rather than leaving the egg as it is, we will cease this Anti-Natalist repression of the unhatched egg and allow it to fertilise.

What now?

It is time for Guided Democracy.

But What is Guided Democracy? Guided Democracy is Democracy that is Guided, that is, it has an existing "Ideology" within it. We already have this, Pancasila. our Interpretation? Nasakom.

Who are we Guiding here? To where? It should be obvious (the people) into becoming a particular kind of political entity, Indonesians.

"The first positive task consists of discovering in a subject the nature, the formation, or the functioning of his desiring-machines, independently of any interpretations. What are your desiring-machines, what do you put into these machines, what is the output, how does it work, what are your nonhuman sexes? The [partisan] is a mechanic, and [guided democracy] is solely functional."

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari , Anti-Oedipus, pg. 322

No Longer shall Indonesia be a nation of Party-Politics bickering over who truly represents "the People", no more will it be a nation "for the People" but "by" the People. No longer shall there be any Macropolitical struggles between parties but instead a Micropolitical exploration of and by the people to build a "Nation" as an organic entity.

"Therefore, a micropolitics of desire would no longer present itself as representing the masses and as interpreting their struggles. Which does not mean that it would condemn, a priori, all party action, all idea of party line, of program or even of centralism, but it would endeavor to locate and relativize this party action in terms of an analytic micropolitics which, at every turn, would stand in opposition to the Manichean dualism that presently contaminates the revolutionary movements. It would no longer seek support from a transcendent object in order to provide itself with security. It would no longer center itself on a unique objectthe power of the State, which could only be conquered by a representative party acting in lieu of and instead of the masses-but rather, it would center on a multiplicity of objectives, within the immediate reach of the most diverse social groupings."

Felix Guattari, Chaosophy, pg. 158

Pancasila is already here, all that is left to do is to create new Socio-cultural linkages through the Liberation of culture from the doctrine of Liberalism, the "Free Market of Ideas", Party Politics, and so forth. The only way we can express "National Interest" or "National Will" is if the Masses are the ones who participate in this Republic with one shared "common interest", building on top of one another.

Nasakom is an incomplete political project, thus we should continue it, there's no "Utopia" that the masses to achieve, No idealised state of affairs to attain, Nasakom is the real movement that seeks to abolish the present state of things of which that is the open macropolitical bickering of the Open Society.

To quote an old Indonesian Old Order song:

"Dekon [Deklarasi Ekonomi] is good advice. The road to prosperity to get rid of suffering. Don't argue with friends. Unite to be strong, our enemies are still rampant, economic (and political) rats. Don't believe the instigator in a flamboyant dress. Let's now, men and women, small and large, old and young unite to firmly follow Nasakom as the core."

Unknown, Deklarasi Ekonomi

Ethnos and Tradition

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.

Indonesia, being a Majorityless Nation-State is an interesting case study as no one group can claim superiority over the rest. Javanese people do not even make up a majority. I believe that in order to correctly fulfill the rejuvenation of each ethnic and cultural group we would need a process of Korenisation. The Creation of Island Republics based on each Island cluster, 8 to be precise, Sumatra, Malaya, Java, Kalimantan, Nusatenggara, Sulawesi, Maluku, and Papua.

Each Republic would contain it it a division of the Proletkult with representatives of each ethnic group whom would focus on generating culture for the Islands. The collective Nous would be focused on, the development of each Island according to the cultures of the ethnicities of the Island. Media would be produced by each localised Proletkult for each Island and Ethnicity for the projection and development of culture into those regions.

Tradition is something we must preserve as it gives life the backdrop for meaning, we may reevaluate Traditions and improve upon them, but we should understand that without Tradition, Nihilism grows and thus, it is our job to conceal Nihilism behind a dam else our Civilisation be wiped away in a flood.

Indonesia as a Multicultural society cerrtainly has many different "essences" of a society that can be "captured", I personally speak as a person from Java (though not Javanese) thus I cannot say for certain what the "essences" are for each society, the accumulation of culture and history that amounts into a particular cultural aspect or values that are unique to each culture. I can say that we all are beginning to share a similar culture Post-Colonially as we adopt more of an Indonesian identity. "Indonesian" is not an Ethnic or Cultural identity, but a geographic one that existed due to the History of the archipelago, especially Post-Colonial times. One cannot say they are an "Indonesian" without outing themselves out as a Civic/Geonationalist, our nation is built on Pan-Nationalism, that we are told that we are Bhineka Tunggal Ika, that Indonesia is one Nation, it is a similar situation as those in the British isles that call themselves a "One Nation Conservative".

"Britain" is a Geographic identity, of Anglos, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Indians, and Blacks. "British culture" does not exist, what it is is merely Anglo culture imposed on all other ethnicities. "American" is a similar situation.

"American" does not exist, only Italians, Anglos, Germans, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Natives, Asians, Irish, and many more. What separates them from their mother countries (Italy, England, Germany, Israel, Spain/Latam, Africa, Asia, Ireland, etc.) are the fact that they have come together in a "unique" way that manifests a sense of "American culture" whilst still having their own cultures unique to each other. What we deem "American culture" is nothing more than Italian, German, and English (with a bit of Mexican and Afro-Carribbean) mixed together.

Even Black America is nothing like Africa, their culture has been Anglicised unlike Africa (though certainly colonialism (even from Arabs) has influenced them). America and Britain should continue being, being what they are, as they are. <==== NOT TALKING ABOUT STILL BEING LIBERAL CAPITALIST IMPERIALIST STATES

Indonesia thus should strive for it's own path towards manifesting a Cultural Identity, for sure it is mostly Javanese with hints of Malay (and a (very miniscule) bit of others) as it is the largest (yet still not majority) ethnic group, it is something to note.

Traditionalism and the Transvaluation of Liberalism

Here I want to reiterate that we are fighting against Liberalism Psychologically, Militarily when we are able to. We must understand that in order to give people into Communism they must be convinced that Liberalism does not work.

In order to do this we need to crush the Unipolar world order, to support movements that fight actively against Liberalism. There is no longer a thing as "Left" or "Right" politics, only "Support" and "Opposition", "Reaction" and "Subversion". Fascism too can be a form of Revolutionary Politics as it goes against the Status Quo, whilst certainly we do not claim nor do we accept Totalitarianism as our own. We adopt the Fourth Political Theory to expand upon Nasakom as it gives us a perspective that neither the "Left" nor "Right" could see, it takes from the Right the appreciation of archaic values, and utilises them to generate culture that is not in any way "Western" or "Modern" in the sense of Liberalism whilst the Left seeks to liberate the Individual from alienation and to allow them to fully express themselves against the chains of wage-labour.

What is liberation for if we are not to express our culture? Our traditions? Our archaic values? The stripping away of our right to express ourselves as social beings? Many on the left would like to be contrarian and proclaim that Communism will make man be subject to a state of hyper-productivity, a near stripping of his own power. Many Communists today scoff at such questions and implications preferring instead to appeal to either Militant Progressivism (and adopting enlightenment values) or Militant Industrialism with a sprinkle of closing their ears.

We often like to speak of Communism as "Anti-Traditionalist" and "Against Nationalism" but we never talk about that in the long run. People who live closely together and especially when they are freed to interact with their comrades more as a social bonding than a productive necessity will eventually develop some form of culture, some form of unique subculture which eventually perpetuates down to generations creating unique forms of expression and social bonds between each locality. Certainly, Marx was against petty nationalism and was against supersitions, but have we ever thought to think twice about that?

I too am against petty nationalism but without the productive necessity of globalism, will nations not form? When I speak "nations" I speak of localised pockets of culture and ethnos, not Nation-States with borders, Communism will definitely abolish borders but not culture, not the Organic bondings between Individuals amongst a particular commune. I believe that Communism will revitalise the Traditions of the past and breathe within them a new light, to create new relations and a transvaluation of existing values and a return to older archaic values, obviously not pure "hardcore" traditionalism, but inspired nontheless. In a world where there is no Myth to hold on to, where we have slain Liberalism, the one who gave us the existing values and the troubles fighting each other over those values, what do we have to turn to? Communism has no values, it is Materialistic, it proclaims no higher beings or purpose or anything, Marx noted that Communist society will search for a "material" happiness, but is this not just consumerism?

But we know Capitalism is the agent in which Consumerism thrives under and we know Consumerism generates inauthentic relations between Human beings and the world around us. We then must turn to creating our own values, or turning back to older values, perhaps a mix of both in order to escape from Nihilism. When Liberalism falls, who is there to prevent Nihilism from flooding our precious Civilisations? Shall we be Anti-Civilisational? Well then we will just create New Civilisations with values among each other. We must ignite a flame to keep us warm, we need to shield ourselves against the Coldness of Nihil, we cannot just simply LARP and continue to mock and dismiss those who ask such existential questions.

Building Socialism

I don't want to delve too much into this, to each their own. However, this is personally what I view Indonesian Socialism could be like.

We may have Bureaucrats whom will administer and be in charge of the Economy. The Bureaucrats can be appointed or elected so long as they know how to do their job. The Economy will be administered by State Enterprises made up of Cooperatives whom are responsible to those higher up. State Enterprises can be generally free to do what they wish with the Economy so long as they are satisfying the people's needs.

Profits earned will be reinvested into the Enterprise. I must admit, being a bureaucrat, or even an entrepreneur is no easy task, it takes a lot of skill to do so and many on the left just scoff at that statement, I mean, what else do you say when you are dogmatically into your Worker-Populist Ideology? The State (and Communes) here has a stake at the Enterprises (hence, State Enterprise) of whom they take seriously of, the State represents the collective of "the People" and any income generated by the Enterprises may be taxed by the State to be spent on other things which benefits the Nation whether it is welfare, education, healthcare, or the military.

Wages under Socialism may as well be Time-wages or Piece-wages, whatever is most efficient or desirable. Certainly the Workers will not receive the full extent of what they made, they after all, produce for society, not themselves, they are not going to hoard everything they made, even in money form, a certain amount of their money will be taxed (Progressive Taxation perhaps).

Land will be Nationalised, Farms will be Collectivised, Peasants will be Proletarianised, Farms will be Industrialised and be operated no differently from a factory or a refinery under a State Enterprise. Shops, Restaurants, and so forth will be converted to Communal Kitchens or Warehouses.

Small businesses will likely be outcompeted by these larger retail and food enterprises. Small businesses thrive off of regulation and hence are able to exert onto society the burden of private property still existing; the goal for us as socialists is simple: eradicate private property and this includes decimating the petit bourgeoisie and petty proprietors, hence why we should support deregulation as well.

That is what I could suggest for the Economy

As for the Government, we will establish many Communes, Communes across the Archipelago, each of them headed by Councils who are elected by the masses to serve on their behalf.

Communes and the State all have stakes in the State Enterprises, hence it is in their interest to support them and appoint bureaucrats for them. Because the Communes are delegated from among the people, it is in their interest to keep the position for as long as possible by keeping the people satisfied.

A very major part of the State would be the Proletkult(s). The Proletkult is focused on creating culture, cooperating with Media Enterprises, aspiring artists, actors, and so on to produce Media that the masses will consume. The job of the Proletkult(s) once we have power is not to condition the masses, the masses are already conditioned into Pancasila-Nasakom but to allow the expression of the creative potential of future generations. Indonesia already has a Minister for the Creative Economy which is good as it allows us to focus and improve upon that sector. We should focus on our Creative industry, everyone involved in it should join the Proletkult(s) and will be able to share their knowledge, passions and be given the resources to attain their visions.

Various types of Media will all be produced by the Proletkult(s). The Proletkult may as well be a federation of creatives whom are apart of their local Proletkults, we will pursuit a policy of Korenisation and the creation of 8 Republics with each having their own section of the Proletkult to focus on their local cultures.

Ecology

TBA

Why I don't like Postmodernity

Despite my Philosophy being descended from Postmodernist Philosophy, I use it to tackle the problem of postmodernity.

I've already explained earlier how the March of Nihil that Liberal Unipolarity will bring and the capitalist cultural breakdown within the era of Postmodernity; Guattari also notices this in his article "The Postmodern Impasse":

Whether they are painters, architects, or philosophers, the heroes of postmodernism have in common the belief that the crises experienced today in artistic and social practices can only lead to an irrevocable refusal of any large-scale social undertaking. So we ought to take care of our own backyards first and, preferably, in conformity with the habits and customs of our contemporaries. Don't rock the boat! Just drift with the currents of the marketplace of art and opinion that are modulated by publicity campaigns and surveys.

Felix Guattari, The Guattari Reader, page 111

Guattari here is correct in stating that the Postmodernists are, for a lack of a better word, "lazy eaters" which is reflected in the descended philosophies of Accelerationism, Postanarchism, and Postleftism. They let Nihil consume them, embracing the cold expanse of atomising Capitalism; the latter two of which try to deny this but ultimately, fall in the same trap.

This is why I am not a Nihilist nor a proponent of Postmodernity, Postmodernism is a Nihilistic trap that actively tries to deterritorialise the existing social orders, the sociocultural noramtivities that society builds itself upon, inducing a cold anarchy by inducing societal degeneration. Is it not that, as Marx put it; Capitalism is the "Anarchy of Production"? That, through this Free Market system, we spread out entropy leading up to society breaking down into Individual and Atomised bits? Is this not what the Egoists and Individualists of the Post-Left and Post-Anarchist camp desire? An actively destructive deterritorialisation, which, ironically reintroduces a new kind of reterritorialisation that inhibits the creation of societal order and structures? All in the name of the self of course!

Let me explain myself. From time immemorial, and regardless of which historical misadventure, the capitalist drive has always combined two fundamental components: the first, which I call deterritorialization, has to do with the destruction of social territories, collective identities, and systems of traditional values; the second, which I call the movement of reterritorialization, has to do with the recomposition, even by the most artificial means, of personologically individuated frameworks, schemata of power, and models of submission which are, if not formally similar to those this drive has destroyed, at least homothetical from a functional perspective.

As the deterritorializing revolutions, tied to the development of science, technology, and the arts, sweep aside everything before them, a compulsion toward subjective reterritorialization also emerges. And this antagonism is heightened even more with the phenomenal growth of the communications and computer fields, to the point where the latter concentrate their deterritorializing effects on such human faculties as memory, perception, understanding, imagination, etc. In this way, a certain formula of anthropological functioning, and a certain ancestral model of humanity, is appropriated from the inside. And I think that it is as a result of an incapacity to adequately confront this phenomenal mutation that collective subjectivity has abandoned itself to the absurd wave of conservatism that we are presently witnessing.

Felix Guattari, The Guattari Reader, page 110

The Post-Left mantra is the same mantra as the Jainists: "Give up, let the world consume itself, let us escape to a better world". For the Jains, they give up the world for Moksha, for the postleft, it is for what could be deemed as "mind insurrection".

The postleftists think that by attaining Moksha, by giving up, to strip themselves naked of all values is the path towards liberation. However, this raises the question, when one strips themselves, how does one create? How shall one create something from chaos? Entropy has ceased, what is to be done? What can you do without any libidinal energy? That, through deterritorialisation to the point that we reach towards the body without organs (which, mind you, is a model of death) we release all that stored energy. When one "schizes out", they release their repressed energy which empties the body of energy. This destructive process ultimately leads oneself to not only be unable to create, but store new energy, even the Reactionary Accelerationists knew about the inevitability of the creation of social order as Capital requires organisation in order to produce economic value even if it is still destructive in nature.

Naturally, it follows that we must then have to turn towards the creation of a new Order, the creation of Tradition, the creation of Society from the ground up.

The National Bolshevik Party of Russia are an Insurrectionary group, the National Bolsheviks participated in direct action to tear down the system and once they have created a vacuum, they shall seize power and take revenge, mercilessly. That is their Party doctrine, their doctrine is to create a new Nationalist and Socialist Order in Russia, one that is revolved around their collective experience as youths being repressed, the breathing of a new light of tradition, archaeomodernity even. Whilst I disagree with their Totalitarian goals, there is much to admire their tactics for their Ideological goals, that they aim to create life from death rather than keep the dead dead.

The bearer of freedom in this case will be Dasein. The previous ideologies – each in its own way – alienated Dasein from its meaning, made it restricted, imprisoned it in one way or another, made it inauthentic. Each of these ideologies put a cheerless doll – das Man – in the place of Dasein. The freedom of Dasein lies in implementing the opportunity to be authentic: that is, in the realization of “Sein” more so than of “da”. “There-Being” consists of “there” and of “Being”. In order to understand where this “there” is located, we should point it out and make a basic, foundational gesture. Yet, in order for “Being” to flow into “there” like a fountain, we must place all of this together – place this entire “hermeneutic circle” into the domain of complete freedom. Therefore, the “Fourth Political Theory” is, at the same time, a fundamental ontological theory which contains the awareness of the truth of Being at its core.

Alexander Dugin, The Fourth Political Theory, page 49

Many decide to sit and cry in the face of Nihil, to just let it be and "escape" and "go to another world", that there is no salvation, others believe that Nihil is a myth, one that doesn't exist (these people are naive to say the least), others embrace it and cheer if not help out in the ever-greatening size of the abyss, but only few can take that "Leap of Faith" to jump over the abyss of Nihil.

These brave People, whom have decided to take that Leap are Heroes, ones that will give us new values, to build a bridge using the resources on the other side. These people, whom looked down at the valley of the shadow of death took a great Leap and brought upon us great lessons to be learned from.

Reading Recommendations

semi-short section of reading recs for new people or something in no particular order

1. Fourth Political Theory by Alexander Dugin
2. Political Platonism by Alexander Dugin
3. Everybody wants to be a Fascist by Felix Guattari
4. The Guattari Reader by Gary Genosko
5. State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin
6. What is to be Done? by Vladimir Lenin
7. Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels
8. Islamism and Communism by Haji Misbach
9. Schooling: They Stole Your Childhood by Eduard Limonov
10. No More Ideologies, It is time to choose the Imperium! by René-Henri Manusardi
11. Gothakritik by Karl Marx
12. Chapter 1 of the German Ideology by Karl Marx
13. Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
14. Parliament or Soviet? by Tan Malaka (requires translation)
15. Philosophy of Life by Tan Malaka
16. Towards a Republic of Indonesia by Tan Malaka (requires translation)

may be expanded if i remembered something

How to Draw

Flag

1. Draw a ball outline in black
2. Make two smaller black circles with black for the eyes
3. Color the eyes white
4. Fill the top half of it with red
5. Fill the lower half of it white
6. Make a white circle with a red outline in the center
7. Draw a Chaos Symbol in it in black
8. You're done!

Color Name		HEX	RGB
	Red	#cd1127	205, 17, 39
	White	#ffffff	255, 255, 255
	Black	#000000	0, 0, 0

Self Insert Relations

Gem

Philosophical Nuggets thought - Gemmy, but far too short. Also not a fan of Agrarianism, Neoluddism, and Strasser.
Imperial Socialism - This is Nothing New

Carbon

Ultroneism - It's certainly interesting to note about how an Egoist embraces tradition and sacrality and I certainly agree with much about what you have to say. Our value systems, you being an Egoist and me being a Collectivist seem contradictory, what I deem to be "Nihilism" is a heat death. A heat death of politics, a heat death of society, and so on which is only possible within a Unipolar perspective. You seem to only define Nihilism as destruction; whilst true that is how I define it but also the very lack of energy within the system, the lack of entropy which causes a breakdown of organised systems and so on. Reading the summary (I'm too lazy to actually read the dense stuff lmao), yeah I mostly agree with you.
Social Nationalism - a Nationalist SocDem, nothing to say tbh.
Alstūdism - Nationalistic Socialism is cool and all but why Fascism?.
Agricoetism - Alright i guess.
Sundog Too much of a proggie and I dislike technolarp, problem I see with your types is that they often do not make themselves understandable to the masses or are far too imaginary. I can see you're using game terminology so I'm gonna use RTS terms to explain my critique. You seem to be the equivalent of playing a Rush-Turling build which often targets the economy of the opponent, While this strategy may be effective against eco players, this does nothing against turtle players as turtling counters rush. turtling is the equivalent of the police apparatus. Insurrection, being a Rush-Turtling build is a no-go as it can be hard countered by a Turtle-Eco build which is what the State effectively is. hence why I play a Rush-Eco build by seizing the potential resources of my opponents for myself and using that to build up my army. Psychological warfare here is the equivalent of an Eco build. With resources from Eco, I can build up an army big enough to take out my enemy's turtling by focusing production on the production of an army strong enough to take out my enemy's defenses. It's not about Infinite or Finite gameplay, story mode or creative mode. Wake up, Commander, our base is under attack. And to close off this short critique: Be one, with Yuri
Great British New Left You're just Mark Fisher innit?
Patrick Thought - Nothing is really to be said, why Monarchism in America?

Coal

Venatrixism - I don't like posties.
Second Anidiotoncrack Thought - Name says it all
Schumacherianism - Diabolical Libertarian jibber jabber
Shellshocked Communism - Stll kind of a hippie but still Anarcho-Larp with no real substance.
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, no like solarpunk, ocalan, bookchin, democracy, or progressivism.

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.
Neo-StockMarketCrash Thought - Steaming Pile of Proudhonian, Tuckerite, National Anarchist Coal
DECBism - Atlanticist Brimstone
Brazilian Liberalism - a liberal what do you expect
Radenism - Silly.
Distributist Reactionarism - 13 year old who doesnt understand reaction
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 people stuff.
Lankajori Thought - Petit Bourgeoisie's strongest soldier.