Neo-Touseyism

I'll type something here soon.

= Overview = I am once again redoing this section

[[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]Understanding Meta Anarchy
The word "anarchy"comes from the Greek anarkhia, which means contrary to authority or without a ruler, now the problem I see inherent with many anarchist tendencies, is the ideal of a specific way of doing anarchy, be that the NAP, or Having to cooperate with a commune. You see, what thiere ideology boils down too is, "If we all think similarly and support the same system, than the state is not required", now it is obvious that we don't have this unilateral support so the question is how they deal with it, how does the ancap get everyone to cooperate with its property laws, or how too does the ancom maintain a lack there of." Knowing that some would probably object to both, the answer is most likely, Force! Now you have created a state like, authoritarian presence, too which you might ask, "Is This Still Anarchy?" No, it is not. Going back to the biggening, anarchy means, "contrary to authority" or "without ruler", and as i have attemted to prove, i dont view most mainstream anarchist movements as either of those, sure you no longer have the same type of authority we have now, but in a way is it really that different, one single leader forcing a system on the majority verses one ruthless mob forcing a system on the minority.?

The alternative to this problem I have layed out is that of viewing anarchy not as a system, not as a program, not as an ideal state. We must move beyond rigid defonitions, or conceptions of what anarchy should look like or how to achieve it (wip)

= Recommendations =

Theory
 My favorite books/essays on theory (I might put a full list of all the thoery I've read on my user wiki)    = Test Results =
 * [[File:Nova.png]]Towards The Creative Nothing
 * [[File:Postsitu.png]]It's Crazy How Many Things Don't Exist
 * [[File:antwork.png]]The Abolition Of Work
 * [[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]]Deluze And Anarchism
 * [[File:Situ.png]]Society Of The Spectacle
 * [[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]] Chaosophy

=Relations= Ideologies=

Liiteral Fascist
Self-Inserts= So I've decided to add the components of ideologies in parenthesis by their name, tell me if I got yours wrong.

[[file:Mega_Yes.png]] Based

 * ([[File:Egocom.png]]/[[File:ExistPhenom.png]]/[[File:Postsitu.png]]) - Based Anti Economics, Absurdism, Situationist, and Deleuzoguattarianism.
 * ([[File:Bahnsen.png]]/[[File:Lacan.png]]/[[File:Ins.png]]) - Quite intellectual, post-structuralist, existentialist, insurrectionist, and anti-civ. And I'm interested in learning more about lacan.
 * ([[File:DialectEgo.png]]/[[File:YngHeg.png]]/[[File:Philan.png]]) - Obviously philosophically intellectual, as for political views, anti work and horizontal association as well as open borders and small voluntary associations are agreeable with my beliefs.

[[file:Yes.png]] Good

 * ([[File:Postmodernicon.png]]/[[File:Volu.png]]/[[File:Mach.png]]): I like the post structuralism, but you seem to believe in the necessity of work and morality (also volentaryism is grabage).

[[file:Meh.png]] Neutral

 * [[File:Vita.png]] Vitarchism ([[File:Soul.png]]/[[File:Pro-Life.png]]/[[File:Communalist.png]]) - An unironic soulist and your ideas can be very impractical (you can't base an ideolegy off of conquering death) but a very friendly user.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism ([[File:Libms.png]]/[[File:Demlib3.png]]/[[File:Geosynd.png]]) - Libretarian Market Socialist, not the best not the worst.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe ([[File:Glencoe.png]]/[[File:Demlib3.png]]/[[File:Marketsoc.png]] - You remind me a lot of but maybe slightly better.

[[file:No.png]] Bad

 * [[File:MLM.png]] NotLibra ([[File:ML.png]]/[[File:Mao.png]]/[[File:Guevara.png]]) - Not the worst for an authleft. You want to relieve the workers of capitalism but replace it with another authoritarian force. At least relatively socially progressive.
 * ([[File:Socdem.png]]/[[File:Prog.png]]/[[File:Civlibert.png]]) - Now I could give a long winded speech about how I dislike your regulatory capitalist liberal democracy, but instead I'm just gonna mention that barack obama is one of your influences and leave it at that.
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheon ([[File:SocDist.png]]/[[File:Unimon.png]]/[[File:Progconf.png]]) - Constitutional Monarchist and distributionst, ugh! At least mildly socially progressive and equal.
 * Ronwelltarianism_icon.png Ronwelltarianism ([[File:Libcon.png]]/[[File:Kak.png]]/[[File:Kak.png]]) - Garbage ideolegy, and your child rights bs makes no sense.

[[file:Mega_No.png]] Fascist

 * ([[File:Authtrans.png]]/[[File:Authcap.png]]/[[File:POSTHUMANISMICON.png]]) - You describe my ideolegy as a fever dream, but don't you support eugenics, racial darwinism, and totalitarianism. Anyway, you seem intelligent though which makes you immediately better than all other auth rights on this wiki, cool looking page too (why do the authrights have the best looking pages).
 * ([[File:Corptism.png]]/[[File:Fash.png]]/[[File:POSTHUMANISMICON.png]]) - I like the archeofuturism, but your sorta a less inresting.
 * [[File:pixil-frame-0(27).png]] New Model Of Cheesenism ([[File:React.png]]/[[File:Homophobia.png]]/[[File:Totalitarian.png]]) - Corporitist, reactionarry, fascist, bigot. Just leave this wiki.

=Comments:=

"I am quite possibly the worst polcomball artist ever."
 * [[File:BasedMan.png]]BasedManism - add me?
 * [[File:Tomjaz.png]] Tomjazzy - You dare challenge me mortal?
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism- Lol
 * [[File:Panth.png]]Pantheonism - A M A T E U R S
 * [[File:Astro.png]] AstroTime - add me? here's the link to my ideology:


 * [[File:Panth.png]]Pantheonism - Add me Marxian.
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Alright add me too
 * [[File:Panth.png]]Pantheonism - Ok.
 * - Could you add me please
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - alright add me to it now
 * - Add me? I'll do the same when I get around to it.
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Sure
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Add me?
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Alright, add me too
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I added you back, but I still dont see my ideology in your self-insert relations tab
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - I added you. Maybe refresh?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Its fine now.
 * [[File:pixil-frame-0(27).png]] New Model Of Cheesenism- add me
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Sure thing fascist
 * - add me?
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Sure could you add me too.
 * [[File:pixil-frame-0(27).png]] New Model Of Cheesenism - wait why i cant see me in your relation?
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Sorry forgot to add you, will do so now.
 * Ronwelltarianism_icon.png Ronwelltarianism - Can you please add me?
 * Ronwelltarianism_icon.png Ronwelltarianism - Wait a minute, I don't see my ideology in there.
 * [[File:Touseyism.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Bro have a little patience I've been busy I'll do it tomorrow
 * Ronwelltarianism_icon.png Ronwelltarianism - Oh! Sorry, my bad!
 * - Add Please?
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Sure thing, could you add me as well
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe- add me
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Yeah, sorry it took a while
 * - It is in reverse, Meta-Anarchism rejects morality and doesn't describe any society to be achieved, because it would be a form of fascism not only to tell "build meta-anarchy", but even to say "meta-anarchy is better than other systems", just do whatever you want, meanwhile panarchy is sort of Kantian Kingdom of Ends.
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Good point, however never did i argue we must all be forced to become meta-anarchists, never too did i say some form of society i want to achieve. In: A Broader View Of This Society, i am merely painting a picture from my limited prospective. But yet, i would argue if their is one fundamental of meta-anarchy that is universal it is "the free flow of desire", your statement that meta anarchy is simply do whatever you want is true but to me it is a fact that you cannot simply, "do whatever you want" in the world we currently live as all institutions such as an organized state, police, borders and miltiary limit this expression of desire. As such is stated that the world could be described more as a a panarchy, a jumble of different ideolegies each with imaginary border lines, while yes meta-anarchy is not "a system" but it is the absence of one, thus differintiating panarchy and our present world from meta-anarchy. (Also an ironic critisim from someone who sais we "must all become post strucutralist")
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Also do you want to be added to reltions?
 * - It was just an explanation, I'm not a meta-anarchist. Post-structuralism is just an instrument to support your idea, I assume everyone wants to protect their world view, so I give an advice how to do it more effectively.
 * - I don't mind it
 * Can you add me?
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - sure
 * Add me this'll be good
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - ok lol, add me too
 * - Add me?


 * - "If we all think similarly and view anarchy not as a system, not as a program, not as an ideal state" is this not the same problem? Do you not then expect everyone to be fine with a kaleidoscope of systems? Again you critique Ideal systems, and then just replace it with another Ideal system. Also your argument of force boils down to Engels argument in On Authority which is a famous Fallacy.
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - Hmn, well first of all I would argue that the problem I lay out with the typical definition of anarchy, is how I see they way the want to achieve it as a form of a program, which acts as an authority to me. The kaleidoscope isn't an ideal, it isnt something to be achieved, or something for us to submit ourselves to, it is nothing more than the product of whatever happens. I think is this was the problem I fell into before (when i first started reading deluze and guattari) I viewed meta anarchy as an ideal state to be achieved, I viewed it as a system, my ideas then could be more described as just synthesis anarchism more than anything else. That is what I am now trying to move away from, as I have came to see meta anarchy or the assemblage not as something to be achieved (also givin that I think the abolition of all governments is impossable) but rather the label we use for when whatever happens, happens. So yeah thats what im trying to get my page to say, i do admitt that i am not a good writer so, i might not be the best at conveying it, but that's what I'm trying to convey. As for Engels, in On Authority, it think the agruments we make are slightly different, my main argument is that if we are trying to create a universal system most likely force would be needed against those who disagree with it, in fact some anarchist ideolegies even agree with that such as Hoppeans who support private police, they know force is neccasary to embrace their ideolegy. They just seem to think it's a good thing, to which I don't.
 * - And so what happens to those who think differently and want a universal system?
 * [[File:Touseyism ball.png]]Neo-Touseyism - (im gonna go down a bit of a rabithole at first, but dont worry ill answer it in the end) I don't think the abolition the government in all countries is any where close to possible, I dont think that "the free flow of desire" is reachable, at least not in the near future. But I reject collective movements that attempt to overthrow the government, that 1. Will likely fail with many people dead 2. Is not really getting rid of authority as it abides by a program of doing anarchy, something i reject. I would rather myself attempt to live as free as I possibly can, pissible perticipating in insurection or civil disobedience towards authority,  maybe utilize T.A.Z ( which i view as a very meta anarchist like structure, in which individuals create temporary spaces that evade control, allowing for the at least a little bit of freedom that we desire), ultimatly, trying to gain as much liberty as possible before we die. So.... I guess the point I am trying to make is that the state wont be abolished and the kaleidoscope wont be realized, so the question of, "And so what happens to those who think differently and want a universal system?", can be best answered as "Good for you, your winning and states exist, and so too do ideologies for these indivdual states, I regret your choice to not attemt to find some freedom while you can, but thats not for me to decide".