Ego-Progressivism

Ego-Progressivism is the current of thought followed and created by Io, it essentially seeks to combine traditional Ego-Communism with Ultraprogressivism, viewing that the struggle for gender, race and sexual liberation should come hand in hand with individual sovereignty and egoism.

[[File:Absurd.png]] Impious Atheism
If there's something that we enlightened atheists know very well is the failed dogmatism of the religious, we look at their logic, that things are the way they are because of a sacred being who made it that way and we can obtain that knowledge, which is absolute, by engaging in its sacred practices and they know that for sure because, well, because they do, because they have "faith", atheist in turn have moved away from that, and distanced themselves from those things and instead achieved a much less dogmatic view, and one that wasn't based on faith.

Thats what they would like you to believe, in truth some atheists have still done those things they criticize christians for doing, they still have their systems which are used to achieve some sort of truth which is absolute and universally aplicable, and they have faith that that is true. That's because any sort of attempt to achieve absolute truth is done by taking what you see and applying it to all reality, so they take their view, which by being individual is in turn subjective, and apply it as objective, as absolute truth based on their faith that their feelings are correct.

But we cannot know that what we know is in truth truly truth, everything that we experience is based upon our own persception, we don't "know" "things", our brain "interprets" things, and interpretations are and will always be personal and subjective, we are a nothing and from that nothing we create everything, for each and every individual that process is different and unique, and as they are nothing, nothing is to say one is more "correct" then the other, in that sense, establishing any absolute truth or any concrete world for everyone cannot be based on anything but faith, as it is faith the only mechanism that can be used to achieve the consciousness that we are absolutely correct in our worldview, every mechanism of achieving truth, be it science or religion, has its own independent processes that is based of only from itself and justifies itself by being itself, making so that at the very start of the chain of thought in any of those systems there is "faith".

So i do not trust in faith, because faith is something sacred, something not in the material world but in the world of thoughts, which is imaterial and not at all at the same stage im in, it is an essence alien to myself and outside myself, as i can only be myself i do not throw myself at faith, i reject it, it is nothing and if it is nothing then reality, as it sustains itself on faith, is nothing as well, and so i view this reality as only an absurdness, one whose meaningless i do not care about and use it only for my own self-enjoyment.

[[File:EgoNihil.png]] Zero Legitimacy
We only live for ourselves in the simplest sense, what we do we tend to do, voluntarily or not, as egoists, as self-interested people, but for most people, if we are to proclaim we do something for our own self-interest and nothing but, we are taken for as devils, as an immoral inhuman monster, no, we cannot simply be ourselves, we must instead hold up something higher as sacred, so society says, humanity, god, the proletariat, they all demand us to hold them as sacred, and thus, to sacrifice ourselves for their sake and taking their cause as our cause, only then will we be "good", because they are good, and we in our "nakedness" are bad, so we must dress ourselves in these ideologies to accomplish a degree of greatness, one that is supposedly good for us, as it is good for society.

But what does that mean really? well its quite simple, that I am supposed to not care for myself more than i care for society, that society's well being is above mine, i am to obliterate myself for the sake of society, when people seek to defend a cause, be it a religious or humanist one that is what they believe, that individuals aren't supposed to care for themselves if that care goes against the health of the ideal they follow, and this ideals are fixed ideas, because they are sacred, untouchable, therefore we cannot bend that thing for us, we must bend ourselves for it, this is subjugation, this letting go of your own power and sovereignty for the sake of something else's, and it is this that is the foundation of every system that seeks to rule the individual in any way.

The way that a holding on to sacredness manifests is clear in every facet of society, everyday we are meant to let go of our own desires for the sake of our "duty" to something, the state requires us to be fully dedicated towards and respect the boundaries it sets so we can attain the status of a lawful citizen and gain from it its benefits, and so it goes for the economy and religion and morality itself, all these things are based on believing in them as above us, we cannot touch those things so we follow what they say, but sacredness is an illusion, while the pious might want you to believe that these things they hold sacred are sacred that is mere ideology, in truth, nothing is sacred, sacredness is just an ideal, thought, its not actually something tangible in any form and is just something established by the human mind for its sociatal needs, if you were to simply forget its sacredness it would no longer be sacred, simply cast aside that ideology and its sacredness is gone, a fixed idea is only fixed because we make it so, but as the egoist changes it and molds it to its own desire it is no longer sacred, it is mere object, subject to the whims of its owner, and in that action all sacredness goes away, and without sacredness all systems of rule are nothing, because nothing is above the unique thus nothing has any legitimacy to rule it, any attempts at justifying so rests in mere phantasm, and so i free myself from fixed ideas, no longer do i see myself as a born devil but as me, and i have no need for an alien cause to enrich myself, as im already rich as myself and that alien cause is nothing else but unreal ideology, which does nothing but shackle the individual into doing what they don't want for the sake of said idea.

[[File:Ultraprogressivism.png]] Break Conservation
We enjoy things when we allow ourselves to do so, and of course we do so, as that is enjoyable! but for the pious we must not enjoy ourselfs if that goes against the sacred, no, we can only be good if we follow what sacredness says, to be possessed by a fixed idea is to also defend that fixed idea, and so the pious must crush any progress made towards individual realization and instead conserve that which it finds sacred.

Conservatism is the ideology of sacredness, it is the political dedication towards the preservation of sacred thought and the maintenance of these oppressive systems, this is what naturally follows from holding something up as sacred, if it is sacred, and you truly are possessed by it then you're going to fight for it, and preserving that sacredness is necessary no matter how much harm you're going to do, conservatism is the ideology of collectivism, of society above individual, it is the ideology of anti-enjoyment, as dedication towards the sacred is what must come first, and it is the ideology of dogmatism, as you must defend that which is sacred and show it no criticism.

Something being sacred is what we are always taught by society, a product of that mandate of preservation, as to conserve a sacredness it must be spread and maintained through society, but what is actually sacred varies and depends, some people are indoctrinated and taught to hold up the values of the nation, of tradition, of the family, of humanity, of work, and so on, but they are all the same in the sense they demand you to dedicate yourself towards these things, i.e that they are sacred, and that their cause is your cause and following that is necessary to be moral.

So conservatism demands from us the obliteration of ourselves, that our joy, enjoyment, and interest is nothing, that we shouldn't aim for those things if they do not go along with that which is sacred, from that comes suffering and pain, all for the sake of what? a phantasm.

And so if we view conservatism in that lens, as the preservation of the sacred then progressivism comes to be an embracement of individuality, as a movement towards destroying the sacred for the sake of the individual, as when you stop worrying about preserving fixed ideas they no longer remain sacred, they are discartable and so the individual rises above it.

[[File:Illeg.png]] My Violence
If there's one thing that liberals demand of you more than anything it's civility, they believe that something such as violence shouldn't be relied on and that its through discourse and law that change is made in society and that the individual aims for their own benefit, this is nothing more than ideology, as much as these systems rest on the idea that you must police yourself and hold their institutions as sacred that is but a veil, and behind that veil of civility and peace rests a structure fully based on, held on by, and spread by violence.

Violence is the way that any political power moves, as ideology is only phantasm the way that the enforcer of these fixed ideas protects said ideas is by measure of strength, one can simply think away any idea of morality, humanity and god and so violence is necessary to maintain the mandate of this ideas, violence is all that politics is, all systems require violence to function, and that violence is justified to you by matter of ideology, they say "no, it is not the state's violence, it is law", and when you do your own violence it is crime, but it is all violence nonetheless, violence is the assertion of sovereignty, it is how one unique manifests its power on its property, they keep you away from violence, and monopolize it, to keep you subjugated, to manifest their own power and sovereignty at the cost of yours, rejecting that status quo and being violent yourself thus leads to repudiation and immorality, that is because they know that once one uses violence one is asserting itself, and that comes at the cost of that which it is asserting itself against, violence is the manifestation of individual power.

Power, we all have power, everything has power, as it manifests itself, if it didn't, it wouldn't, so to achieve freedom, to be free of something one must use power to keep it away from you, that is how you become free of it, by taking freedom for yourself, that is your own power, your power to take, to manifest, to not be possessed but to possess, when an individual breaks with the law and institution it is exerting its power through violence for the sake of itself, it is egoistic, and it is how that unique rises above the chains that is placed on them by the systems at hand, that is how one can truly assert themselves as individuals, and break free from the oppressive fixed ideas that surround them, through violence and with their own power.

The individual is the powerful one, it is from that power that one takes and gives, it is power that moves politics, society, and all else that is shaped by the individual, every structure is made by individuals and maintained only be individuals manifesting their power, i will use my power not for the alien cause but for myself, to take for myself what enjoyment i so choose.

[[File:Anqueer.png]] Queerness
Often do people confuse queerness and queer identity as something that is a spook, people see queer movements as tribalistic and such but i could not disagree more, really the biggest spook is the allocishet society and the gender class system it is based on, and queerness, by definition, can only be a rejection of it in favor of ownness.

That allocishet society is oppressive is quite obvious upon any basic analyses, people are divided in a gender class system based on their relation towards reproductive labour, in patriarchal societies such as ours the male is positioned as the dominant one in society and female the subjugated class, not much different from the proletariat/bourgeoisie relation, however both classes are oppressed even if one is oppressed more, women are of course fully subjugated but men as well have the duty to match a pre-defined ideal of maleness, leading to alienation and oppression, but that is not born out of a gender class system in of itself, but of gender, gender is the fixed idea enforced by society that forces us to act not as ourselfs but to perform as some ideal, and violence be upon us if we reject, upon performing them we are placed in the gender class system which will be the root of many more oppression and harm, gender itself is an idea that manifests itself in a way that is only oppressive and harmful.

But then there is another class in the gender class system, the queer, which are defined by being outside of it, not falling into either male or female roles, but rather being themselves and existing for themselves, that way queerness is something inherently insurrectionary and anti-establishment, as it challenges the allocishet status quo by putting the individual above it, the sacred demands of allocishet society are rejected and instead queerness is established, which is nothing more than individual sovereignty in the face of the oppressive allocishet society, another argument towards the insurrectionism of queerness can be seen in the way that allocishet society treats queer people, violence is what is used to maintain the gender class system, violence that is direct at every group in that system to maintain their obedience, women are victims of this violence when they challenge the class system but queer people by their nature are always victim of violence and always in the process of being eliminated by being always a challenge to allocishet society, a society which all systems wishes to protect itself and so will destroy all that challenge it, and queer people are the biggest challenge to that system as with queerness the gender class system cannot sustain itself, in truth, queerness and allocishet society cannot coexist, one will seek not domination but the erradication of the other by their nature, if we queers wish to remain queer, that is, not subjugated to the whims of allocishet society, we must work to exterminate it, and if allocishet society wishes to protect itself it must guarantee queerness cannot survive, whether it be by assimilation (peaceful extermination) or full blown extermination.

On the face of that queers have each other, and only each other, as individuals who do not seek their extermination, and it is in that togetherness that one can unite their powers into something that can sufficiently challenge allocishet society, breaking it with queer violence and pink terror, that is how queers can protect themselves and free themselves from the clutches of allocishet oppression, but i do not call for sacred unity, or sacred queerness, queerness by definition cannot be sacred, thus that unity is nothing more than an union of uniques, working together while maintaining their own uniqueness, their ownness, because that is what fighting for queerness is, fighting for your own to be able to establish itself and not be subjugated, thus it is not a fight for "queer rights" but for "queerness" and a fight for queerness is a fight for me!

And so pink terror and queer rage must be unleashed, allocishet society, even so called cis "allies" will forever see queerness as something to be eliminated and they will use whatever methods they deem fit, queer people in turn, if they wish to maintain their queerness needs to respond in kind, playing their game will only lead to playing in their hand, queer violence is how queerness can protect itself against its enemies and stand by itself as itself, allocishets will not stop their persecution until queerness is annihilated either through assimilation or straight violence, queer people in turn, if they wish for survival, can only annihilate back.

[[File:IndWor.png]] Individual Worship
When creating the building blocks of the new liberal order the enlightenment thinkers would preach "individualism to a degree", that is to say that it placed importance in the individual while still caring about political systems and other fixed ideas and placing the individual as subject to so, Stirner critized this type of liberal individualism as being merely "freedom from persons'" and Goldman criticized what she called "rugged individualism" as well so theres a clear difference between egoism and liberal individualism, but nevertheless that vision of individualism persists and is the main one, atleast in the west but i assume the world, that is thought about when it comes to the topic of individualism, but i put forward the case that that isn't real individualism and that liberal individualism is but a set of rules, a cage and a mold for the ones that achieve its "dream" and an ideology of servility and submission to all those that don't.

Now, not to say the obvious but when it comes to liberal individualism there comes an assumption built in, an understanding of the word based on an ideology, that is in this case liberalism, for the liberal individualist freedom is sacred, so is capitalism and democratic society -to a degree- in this it is created already a system and a "room" which the individual under liberal society must confine themselves in, the individual isn't free to wander where they want, they must limit themselves to the area given to them by society, and what is that area exactly? well, its capitalism: one must always seek their material self interest! one must, through their market raise their wealth, through the market exert their power -which is their wealth- and take benefit from the freedom -which is the freedom from peoples' as explained before- given to them by the state and use it to grow themselves through the capitalist system.

There is of course, a part of this liberal ideology that has been debunked quite thoroughly throughout the last century or so, which is that under the capitalist system we are all equally in a level playing field, all equally poised to succeed and all equally can achieve the same things through our merit, that is bullshit of course, the different conditions each human finds themselves in puts them in different spots in the socio-economic ladder, a ladder which is manipulated by those above it to make it harder to climb because it is in their benefit, there is the division of labour as well, of bourgeosie and proletariat, all this makes me want to analyze this ideology from two points of view, from the point of view of the capitalist whom the ideology favors and who are the ones who teach this ideology to the rest, and the non-super rich people who are taught that they too can be rugged individuals.

From the liberal myth the self-made capitalist is the highest ideal, the ideology paints these people as individualists, who do what they do because they follow their self-interest, they bend society to their whims due to their wealth and utilize all they have in their possession for their own benefit, this people are supposed egoists, who put themselves first and have the right to do so because of their merit, they got there because they are intelligent enough to do so, skilled enough, creative enough and ambitious enough, they are conquerors. That however, is nothing but myth, while the question of merit and being "self-made" i've already discussed in the previous paragraph, the second point, that is that they are egoists -more specifically voluntary egoists, who aren't alienated and follow their own self interest- is what i will discuss here, you see, all this talk of chasing their self-interest and doing stuff for themselves also fail to be true because they all do it within the liberal economic system, you can say they are selfish assholes sure but what they are as well is alienated, by taking a position of power and turning yourself into a gear of the capitalist system you're just that, not yourself, but a member of the system, who has to work within it and accept its rules, this rings true for every leader, be it a president or a king or even just a warlord, taking this positions means exerting the power of that position, that position is a fixed idea that you alienate yourself to and you have to follow the mythology of the idea to continue exerting their power, a warlord to enjoy the benefits of being a warlord must follow the responsabilities and duties of a warlord, and put being a warlord first, in this there is no "great man" that is truly individualistic as to achieve that you must first debase yourself, put yourself down and instead put on the mask of a "great man", the power exists not in the individual, but in the "great man".

And for us proles that great man is a sacred ideal, we are meant to chase it and attempt to become it, and for the ones that are seen as already there we are meant to respect them, treat them as the heros and "self-made individuals" we are taught they are, they are great men, and you aren't great, therefore: forget yourself to become great and respect those above you, follow the hierarchy. But what is this if not worship? and worship is the least individualistic thing one can do, you're putting fixed ideas above you, treating it as sacred, and alienating yourself by letting go of what you are for what you should be, and to achieve that ideal one must limit themselves to the capitalist system, the sacred worship of the "self-made individual" leads to servility and submission not just by putting some great individual you are meant to respect above you, but by accepting those premises one limits themselves to the way given to them by the capitalist society, there is no finding your one way, if one wishes to exert their power and pursue their self-interest in an egoistic manner, either by ways of crime or organizing with fellow workers, the worshippers of the self-made individual will attempt to crush you, reject you entirely, because you are not allowed to be yourself, to truly chase your self-interest, you are meant to worship and follow the sacred rituals of capital, thus is created a religion around "individualistic" capitalism that like all religions annihilates the individual in its collectivistic force, the self-made individual is nothing but someone shackled to greater power and every other person is but the servant of the wider system, there is no space for individuality, no uniqueness, only the crushing cogs of liberal individualism.

[[File:IndCom.png]] Work and Play
As a speaker of a latin derived language i feel it is my obligation, my duty i sacrifice my individual to, to start this with a certain statement, one that i imagine is paraphrased in the start of many sociology classes when talking about work, that is, that work is torture, in many romance languages the word for work is derived from the latin tripalium, a torture device, and oh how we complain about this torture, really, the only work people talk about liking is work you want to do, but if you work on what you want then you "don't work a day in your life", but nevertheless it is ever present and ever domineering, even though the socialists have come about wishing to end this dreadful torture they still only wish to bring about a "workers' society" in which you're entitled to your labour, to your work, even with workers' liberation we still have our hands and feet tied to the tripalium.

It really cannot be understated how much the idea of work is ingrained in our present society, it is present under every system and every state and seen as but a natural thing that all humans must do, our entire society revolves around production and with that the individual is roped in into revolving around it too, people live to work because they need to work to live, they subjugate themselves to the structure of work and slave for a system until they die, because if they don't then they die, from birth to death people are groomed into being workers and then made to work, when you're born the state takes care of you with the degree that it does because it views you as a future worker, and then puts you in school where you are trained with the materials necessary to become a good worker (and a good samaritan as well but we are talking economics here) and then you either study more so you can work for more money or stop studying there and just work with what you have, either way you have to work, and then if you ever want to stop working you just have to work enough so you have enough money saved to retire, if you're lucky you live under a state nice enough for that to be a "gift". And when you don't work, what do you do? well that's simple, you rest, but resting only makes sense relative to work, you need to rest because you worked and so you can work better after you rest, rest is still just a preparation for work, when you rest you're still a slave to work.

The antitheses to work then isn't rest, but play, individual voluntary creation for the sake of joy, not working because it is your duty to work or you starve but playing around with what gives you joy and getting from that what you need for your joy, do something you love and you won't need to work a day in your life, work is alienating and oppressive, but play is just the opposite, but is in that that those two are different, their similiraty lies in labour, both play and work create value and allow for survival, immersing yourself in what is in your interest is the most joyful way to get you what is in your interest, people won't starve because they wouldn't work, because being well fed is in most peoples' interest, someone who finds it fun to cook might agree to feed people who make them joyful with their own play, like a fisher who gives them the fish they need to cook, then the artisan who enjoys eating that fish might create the tools necessary for the fisher to fish and so on, but this play cannot come about under a capitalist system or any other class system, a working class demands work, demands alienation of the individual for the sake of work, in that we aren't playing, because we have to work, so instead of playing we rest so we can work again, play comes about through insurrection, this act which dissolves and negates all class and state structures, creating classlessness and statelessness, in that space work is dissoveld, and play is allowed to flourish.

Personality and Behaviour
Ego-Progressivism acts exactly like its founder, Io

Me

 * [[File:Ioist.png]] Ego-Progressivism - Loving yourself is really a necessity if you wanna be happy i think

Like

 * [[File:Ultro.png]] Ultroneism - Simply fantastic philosophy, i always have a great time reading what he has to say, really can't think about anything negative to say that wouldn't just be nitpicking.
 * [[File:HelloThere314Icon.png]] HelloThere314ism - We agree on a lot, like a lot, while reading his page im mostly just nodding along.

Kinda Like

 * [[File:Ashley.png]] AshleyHereism - While i this would definetly be a step up to the current liberal world order we have to deal with i fail to see how this should be anything i should sacrifice myself for, when you take up the mantle of an anarchist revolutionary you are putting yourself below the ideal future you wish to achieve, but that ideal is just that, an ideal, immaterial thought, why care about that more than my present, sensual being? nevermind the fact that the result would just be another society, another oppressive cage to keep me down, just a larger, comfier one, social anarchism is a pretty idea, but i don't want to live for pretty ideas.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - Freedom of the individual - except for Egoism, Abolish all hierarchies - except for the justifiable ones, Collective Ownership - except you have to work in it to have it, the anarcho communist says: be free, unless it goes against what society thinks should be good for you (i.e what we see as good for society), otherwise you feel the cold shackles of collectivism grasping at your wrists.
 * [[File:Rock.png]] Rocksism - I somewhat sympathize with those beliefs, as i used to hold very similar ones, but thats then, now i'm really not a fan of most of these ideologies, they are collectivist and seek to just create new systems and reinforce the production based society we live in, its far from liberation, its just reform, and i don't want just reform.

Neutral

 * [[File:Duckf.png]] Duck - I feel like i need to have more to read before i can probably comment on this, but why do you need more justification for illegalism? you already see authority and morality as rejectable so why find some alterior reason for crime other than "because i want to"?, isn't that justification enough?
 * [[File:Iconfloofel.png]] Floofel's Thought - While yes, breaking away from the state requires individual self-reliance (or more specifically, creating systems of individual interaction that don't ask permission from the state) i hardly see how this would require such a strict life-style, nor can i say i believe that limiting yourself to such a living would be such a large leap in terms of freedom, i don't want to be free to farm as that means i'm still not free to do as i will.
 * [[File:MrvLIT.png]] Mr. V Thought - A non-partisan political system is still a political system, and will keep drowning individuals in its politics for as long as they are made to participate in them, as is the case in a direct democracy, where each individual has a duty to participate in the political process, but all of these are foreign mandates, oppression of the sovereign individual.

Dislike

 * [[File:Vamp.png]] Braun Spencer Thought - Now first you assert that everything is relative, "we all have our one way", then you say to do this, that and that so that we can accomplish this that and that, yes, let us all melt into your world, forego all our individuality for your personal dream society that you believe you have the moral right to (if it is ever achieved) through "might", so blindly focusing on creating your own heaven you forget that it is above the clouds and you would never reach it, me instead? i will just enjoy what i have next to my arms.
 * [[File:Vexism.png]] Vexism - I find it quite funny how you, a political authoritarian, describes egoism as an "infantile disorder of the highest degree", yes the one who ignores every alien idea forced upon them and decides to act independently is acting childish, much more grown up of course, is the one who entrusts everything to the big papa in the government, let us drool and slave away and let big daddy tells us what to do and what to think, all we must do is follow the orders of those above us because they "deserve it", and they too must just follow what the state, the big papa in the sky, needs, this is all very grown up of course, almost as mature as the idea that subjugating yourself to this strictly alien and oppressive order is in any way "progressive" or good for queer people, no, such a stratification of society only leads to the organization of society and "order" under which no such thing as "queer" is allowed to exist.

Enemies

 * [[File:Alaois2.png]] ComradeAlaois Thought - The Brazilian nation and Brazilian peoples have a thousand-year history behind them: what a long life! Then go rest in peace, never to rise again, so that all will be free whom you have kept in chains so long.—The people is dead. —Long live me!

Comments

 * - Comment if you wanna be added :3

Topic Suggestions
So i want to write more stuff in this page but i don't really have an idea of what exactly i could talk about, so be free to tell me here what you want to hear me talk about! please make sure its something that there is a lot to talk about and isn't just momentary like geopolitics shit or internet drama


 * Do you have any plan for organization of society?
 * No because i don't like society, any society.
 * - Perhaps you could talk about the communism part of your ego-communism (if you still follow that of course}. Or you could talk of epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge) and metaphysics in a stirnerite sense.
 * Thats a good idea, i will probably write about communism once i have more free time (currently under the process of moving), as for epistemology, i would probably have to read more before i do
 * - I mean you could talk about those things, but it would never be Stirnerite. That would miss the whole point of his Anti-Hegelianism, and thus Anti-Philosophy.
 * Yeah i get that, plus epistemology and metaphysics never really interested me which is why i said i would need to read more before i talked about it
 * - I meant more of an exploration of Stirner's critique of these areas, not the creation of any metaphysical principles