However, let's roll with them. I think many of these do need clarification as I listed a lot of them as mixed opinion, but even those I did not listed as such do need clarification.
Conservatism - This is one of the most ignorant and retarded ideologies out there. Ostrich or 3 monkeys' position: put head in the sand and see no problems, hear no problems, talk no problems. These institutions and traditions existed since time immemorable, and we should not change them now. This is what keeps existing fat cats in power and prevents us from getting anywhere. I can find no single redeeming quality in this ideology. Only brain-dead morons or the fat cats in power could possibly support that. If you are conservative but not Warren Buffett level rich, then I am sorry for your monkey level intelligence.
Progressivism - In theory it's a modern successor of Classical Liberalism that strives to make people free, but in practice it's just a degenerate traitor treadmill ideology that serves the status quo by disempowering young men. BLM and SJW are fake champions of freedom and what they do achieves nothing to make lives of young men any better or freer. Supporting them is a dead end. These traitors promise to lead you to freedom only to land you in concentration camp. Avoid them at all costs.
Moderatism / Apoliticism - Unlike conservatism they are at least honest. Doing nothing achieves nothing but at least they do not fall for fakes such as progressivism or 3rd way. That means that at least they are not retarded.
Traditionalism - Overall I am against doing anything simply because "it was always this way". Some traditions are useful however, especially in face of retarded progressivism or feminism. Aside from opposing feminism, traditionalism do not have other purpose.
Indigenism - Aboriginal or first nations drivel is braindead retarded self-defeatism, unless you are aboriginal yourself. We conquered it fair and square, its ours now. Most indigenous people did not even have anything close to a nation of a state. Each tribe was its own people and fought wars against each other. Now they can just integrate in our society like any other regular member. No any special statuses for them.
Capitalism - I do not have any moral opposition to capitalism. Unlike Progressivism, he is partly misguided descendant of the Classical Liberalism who lost himself in spreadsheets and fiscal accountability that he no longer sees forest for the trees. Capitalism aims to maintain individual freedom build things but treats people like cogwheels of expendable labor force.
It professes Classical Liberal values in theory but could no longer embody them in practice. It devolved into very Feudalism but with asterisk that Classical Liberalism aimed to defeat. It still better than Feudalism though.
As much as in theory everyone is free, in reality only those who possess enough capital can actually set up their own business and majority without such means have no other choice but to work for those who have the said capital. Thus, society is divided into two classes of those with capital (bourgeoisie) and those without (proletariat). This division is almost as iron clad as those between lords and commons under feudalism. After all, where could a common men get enough money to start their own business. How can he possibly make it more competitive that big ones already established. Common men have neither financial means, nor knowledge necessary to achieve that.
Wage slavery is a reality that capitalism has to wake up to and fix if it does not want to lose to more radical alternatives.
Marxism - Marx was good at pointing out all the issues with capitalism that devolved it into the neo feudalism. That last paragraph on capitalism is based on Marx's writings and of course holds true.
Marx however offered no solutions to any of that beyond vague statement that things will work out on their own somehow in the future. They actually did.
Because of that you can hardly call pure Marxism an ideology one can follow or support.
Socialism - If capitalism at least maintained individual freedom and opportunity theoretically then socialism eschewed all that completely. At minimum socialism wants all businesses to be controlled by workers like co-op by law. At maximum nationalize all enterprises to the state. Unfortunately, there is little clarity which what each of them look.
Term Socialism itself is too broad to tell what final outcome it will entail.
Democratic Socialism would let workers vote to decide how all of that should be run. Undemocratic one would instead let party vanguard to decide for them.
Ironically enough socialism produces corporatocracy where everything in the country is run by one giant government owned corporation. The "socialist" state is even run much like a corporation.
Another issue I have with socialism that it puts needs of collective above those of individual, which is a dangerous slope. As someone who values his freedom a lot, I cannot accept that.
Idea of workers-controlled businesses is interesting, but ultimately not essential for individual freedom. So, I see little benefit over the capitalism in that regard.
Nationalized Undemocratic Socialism is completely unacceptable, however.
That took so long, but that only covers economic side of socialism.
When it comes to social policy of socialism, then its ugly stupid and completely unacceptable mess of feminism that will lead to while women being taken by black men.
Classical Liberalism - The glorious originator and a fundamental freedom fighter. Back in the days of Feudal class structures one's place in society was solely dependent on one's birth: if one was a first born in noble family, he would inherit status and wealth from his dad and will live a privileged life. If not, one was stuck in shitty misery without any opportunity to improve their lot in life. It is to this world Classical Liberalism brought freedom and opportunity to be everything one wanted to be. Now feudal rules are long forgotten ghost of the past and we all are much freer that our feudal ancestors.
Classical Liberalism is very based originator of many modern ideologies, from progressivism to libertarianism.
Modern Liberalism - official successor of Classical Liberalism who is somewhat confused on what it supposed to do now, that its original objectives are achieved. Because of that it's just a moderate centrist ideology that does little to address any of the modern challenges to freedom. It mostly maintains status quo, but unlike Conservatism it's not aimed at stagnation and does wishes to do good.
Marxism-Leninism - Socialism how it was implemented in the USSR and other socialist/communist states. The ugliest goblin, theoretical socialism could have turned into. It managed to achieve all the drawbacks of socialism without any of its advantages. It had no freedom, no prosperity, no workers control and nothing going for it at all.
This is an utter failure of an attempt at socialism that only completely retarded people could support nowadays.
Peronism - I read wikipedia and pollcomballanarchy on Peronism and could not really figure its ideology. Peronism is not an ideology, but rather a populism that says what people want to hear and promises everyone everything they want. That does explain why it is as popular as two for the price of one offer.
Peron himself could not figure out how to achieve all of that, but to avoid ruining the image of this ideology staged a coup to remove himself. Unlike Salvador Allende he did not die or even went to exile. He later returned to power for another attempt.
Trump doing the same thing in the US but faces much more criticism for his actions. May be that is because Libras are smarter than Geminis.
Distributism - Idea of spreading wealth from well off people to those less fortunate is good and fundamentally makes people freer by making them less dependent on jobs and bosses. I do not particularly support the Christian roots of this ideology and have some skepticism over its intentions, but it probably aims good.
Trotskyism - I can give Trotskyists credit for refusing to accept a degenerate state, the USSR has become. At the very least they aspired to achieve workers liberation despite opposition and malignment from both capitalism and communism.
Luxembourgism - As far as I understand it's just another term for Democratic Socialism. It's better than other forms of socialism but still does not undress the individual liberty deficiency.
Transhumanism - I like technology and I think we should full embrace it to make our lives more comfortable and convenient. Stuff like robots, automation and Google Glass are not offensive, they are our better future. The sooner idiots realize it the better.
Christian Right - I wonder if they exist only to make Conservatism look less retarded. Idea to use a religion, where main protagonist was an anti-establishment rebel, into ideology what supports bashing the poor and stemming any attempt at change is both revolting and hypocritical.
Christian Right proudly supports protecting property rights from the likes of Jesus Christ.
No seriously they are that retarded, or hypocritical.
Zionism - I am not a super fan of Zionism or Jews, but they do need a state to call their own. They have historical connection to this land. Also, overall, they are much more useful members of international community compared to Palestinians.
On the other hand, I do have many Arab friends, so I do not particularly like to snub their favorite Palestine either. Maybe resettle Palestinians in some other land.
For Europeans Jews are basically Arabs and for Arabs they are basically Europeans, both consider them foreign.
Democracy - I support democracy, it may have flaws, but alternatives seem much worse. Other than absolute rule by me personally. Aside from myself I trust no institution or ideology to have unlimited control.
Theocracy - Religion officials tend to support status quo, privileged and old at expense of new and young. This is Conservatism on steroids. See Conservatism and Religious Right section for explanation why its retarded.
Secularism - No gods, no masters. Secularism is freedom and ability to control your life without out lies from hypocrites. Very based.
Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism - Anarchism is more of a theory or an aspiration than an ideology that can be implemented. Out of these An-Cap at least wants to preserve individual freedom in theory. An-Com hardly so.
Environmentalism - wooden spoons, paper bags and cardboard straws are retarded and people who wish to replace plastic with these things are morons beyond any redemption. I do not give a flying fuck if that saves the planet or not, they are inconvenient to use and step back from technological progress. Also, they do not save the planet.
On the other hand, renewable energy or electric cars are good, but they can co-exist with existing ones. More cars and energy, the cheaper they are and better for people.
Minarchism - State should not be bigger than it needs to be but making it smaller in itself does not solve anything.
Monarchism - It's just an archaic remnant of the bygone past. Its unneeded and near useless, but not as retarded as say Conservatism.
Nationalism - When I lived in Russia, I thought that Nationalism is ideology of the most retarded people: those who would starve the population to build tanks for military to beat America and NATO all while China slowly eats at Russian eastern areas. Not only do they cause suffering, they do not even understand where the real threat is.
In Australia however I grew more Australia-Nationalistic. I support defending Australia by military means, expanding its influence and advancing out interests by means of military might. Here I can feel these interests are our interests rather than Kremlin only interests. Australia works much better for individual person than Russia and its military so far did not demanded any sacrifices from me.
Fascism - I do not like authoritarian aspects of fascism but I like its ability to eschew morals and other spooks in the name of advancing our interests at expense of foreign countries. When your life and future is on the line, things such as moral are nothing more than hypocrisy. I can admire fascism ability to ignore these things and relentlessly pursuer self-interest at expense of other countries.
Fascism will not hesitate to feed me with food stolen from someone else it killed for me while Conservatism would only pray to their useless god as I die of starvation. For me choice is obvious and that is Fascism.
Libertarianism - The most based of Classical Liberalism descendants. Libertarianism realizes that goal of freedom is not fully achieved, and circumstances conspire to take that freedom away. In realizing that Liberaltarianism works its best to achieve maximum freedom possible. Of course, to really achieve that it has to become Social-Libertarianism, and not all Libertarians accept that. However, it's one of the few ideologies that sees clearly what the problem is and seeks solutions.
Georgism - As population grows, value of land grows more and more, thus turning property owners into a new aristocracy. Georgism is a potential solution to this problem. People should not be relegated to second class existence based on whether they own property or not. That is just back to Feudalism, even worse one that original one. Georgism is a potential solution.
Authoritarianism - As I said in fascism section, I do not like authoritarianism. One of the principal foundations of all anarchism is a desire to be free of authority. To not have any people who tell you what to do. Authoritarianism is the opposite of that, it's just someone who tells others what to do. There is even nothing to justify it at all.
Stratocracy - Rule by military is not the best thing in the world. It can only be justified in very limited situations, like to oppose Chinese populist Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand.
Anarchism - Anarchism is a theory and a most noble aspiration to live free of any authority. So that no one can tell you what to do. We should work to make it reality.
Libertarian Socialism - In theory it's an attempt to reconcile collectivism of socialism with individual freedom, however I do not fully understand how it will be achieved. I do support Social Libertarianism but that is not the same thing. Just like Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are different things.
Technocracy - This has potential to be useful, but at the same time there is a risk it can turn into dictatorship of the false science. There is no guarantee that everyone who calls himself scientist or has some credentials is really an expert on things and has our real best interests in mind. Technocratic Liberalism is somewhat better.
Neo-Liberalism - We should spread Liberalism and out way of life globally. People like Putin, Kim Jong Un and Xi Jingping are enemies of freedom and run completely inhuman authoritarian regimes that treats people like cattle. We have to fight to put an end to these practices.
Imperialism - We should take land and resources from others and make them ours for the benefit of all of us. They do not think of our wellbeing so why should be care about theirs.
Anarcho-Egoism - This is the most based holy grail of ideologies. Nothing cares for individual freedom quite as much as this. This is the most fundamental of all principles that should underpin every good ideology. This is what I support most. I am Egoist and proud of it.
Social Democracy - Not on the list, but important. Its bland and boring, but it's probably the only thing that currently unite us. Social spending is the most fundamental aspect of our society. Even right-wing support only reduction but not cancellation of it. Only completely braindead rightists would support cancellation of social spending.
No comments:
Post a Comment