UserWiki:Duck-Citizen

Authority have no difference with power. Moral claims have no difference with demands. You have no obligation to obey both if you don't want to.

I took  as my ideology since it doesn't force me to do anything, and added some  Post-structuralist stances to advance it further. However as you can notice by visiting other pages post-structuralism is deeply connected with, since I was   before, I feel mistrust toward it. Foucault, D&G,  Baudrillard, use post structuralism to carry it further, so I don't want to agree with them.

Anti-war
Any radical political change requires to change current authority, it also starts civil war and it gives no freedom, no prosperity, no equality. We cannot predict when it will end, and who will win, always state of civil war is worse than order in which we are living. I don't want to stop anybody from doing it, I will not be on anyone's side either. Normal wars share all traits, I want to avoid them as well. So, my personal opinion on all this things is negotiation, I prefer politicians with the same attitude, but I do not support them in full sense, since I don't want to die for them, this is what I want to avoid.

Relations with society
It comes from certain ideas:
 * [[File:Poststruct.png]] Jacques Derrida - Différance
 * [[File:Poststruct.png]] Jean-François Lyotard - Collapse of the "grand narrative"
 * [[File:Neolib.png]] Ralph William Souter - Economics imperialism
 * [[File:Heraclitus.png]] Heraclitus - Flux
 * [[File:Stirner.png]] Max Stirner - Unique

1. Everything changes, our history teaches us that nothing we had back then we have today, people are part of this process.

2. People are different, unique even, it doesn't mean we are always doing something different from the rest of us, it means that we share nothing, obviously you can try to unite some humans under something only they share, but here is the problem mentioned above, people are changing.

3. We cannot understand each other. Différance, this idea was mentioned in some form by Lacan and Wittgenstein as well. Language, text or any other form of information will never be able to fully transfer all information we want to express, any idea therefore can be understood differently and subverted to the opposite of what author wanted. Laws, constitution, tradition, culture and orders is the primary force of society building. So, even if people are the same for some time we are still in danger to misunderstand each other and create conflict.

4. Justice is subjective, product of the human mind, your idea how to make things right isn't better than ideas of others, no more right and no more wrong, just system cannot exist for everyone.

5. Economics is a part of social sciences, field where people are trying to learn how human relations work, and economics successfuly steals ideas from other studies, other social sciences successfuly steals ideas from economics, it indicates us that human relations are market relations, and only in conflict we can escape market. Communistic ideal to abolish market relations forever cannot be achieved.

I love how much freedom from nature I have, however all high tech are created by society, and atomized individuals wouldn't be able to create it. There is no need to choose only one freedom, you can enjoy both of them by using products of society and not participating in it, I don't desire for society to be destroyed, but I don't want to risk my life for it's preservation as well. There is no other exit from dillema of nature freedom - social freedom, such things as  will never become possible, planned economics of   will lead to dictatorship, and any type of   - will forever stuck in 19th century.

Demand of ideology
Socialist is a person who understands the world from specific point of view, such person believes that society should be organized differently or horrible disaster will happen, and with socialism everything will be fine. It means socialist must always live under a pressure, and to ease its burden it must act, must do something, socialism is a radical ideology, it doesn't believe that something can be changed legally, socialist must work for this cause. This is what means to truly be a socialist. If you don't do anything you cannot call yourself socialist and the same can be told about any other ideology that isn't status quo. If you believe in capitalism, conservatism then you must be ready to protect this system with your life, because otherwise something terrible will happen. If you plan to hide or run during civil war then you cannot call yourself conservative or whatever -ist.

I'm honest with myself, I will not do anything, not fight for new, not protect the old, I will only care about my own life, I'm not any -ist, just apolitical.

Stolen Flag
IllegalismWAJ.svg

Relations
Ideologies=

Good

 * [[File:Awaj.png]] - I mostly agree with such analysis of society.
 * [[File:Reform.png]] - Civil war is more horrible than the state, I would avoid it and wouldn't want to push others to fight for my ideals.
 * [[File:Neoliberal-icon.png]] - In international relations neoliberalism proposes to achieve peace between nations through mutual dependence in production, which is preferable to peace through war. Political neoliberalism is mostly great because it is willing to compromise with people like any other liberalism, tho some modern liberals are forgetting it. They want to eliminate political opponents, which drives them to change the system by revolution.
 * [[File:Apolit.png]] - Essentially me.
 * [[File:Anin.png]] - Category I'm falling in to.
 * [[File:Ego.png]] - It doesn't accept mind-body dualism. But basically my ideology.

Neutral

 * [[File:PCB-Postciv.png]] - While it doesn't do anything, it believes in inevitable collapse of society, I just don't see it, future is unpredictable, by always assuming the worst possible scenario you are losing time you could spend with pleasure.

Bad
Self-Inserts=
 * [[File:Annil.png]] - Historically they all were revolutionaries, something I cannot do myself or advice to anyone.
 * [[File:Insan2.png]] - All this effort can be used to increase your own welfare and freedom. Well, unless you see it doesn't work. In this case - sure, but why not to do illegalist praxis?

Good

 * [[File:Ultro.png]] Ultroneism - I practically stole your lifestyle of ideology, but life circumstances enforced me to take this, I had to accept it to not lie to myself, I'm exactly this - apolitical.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - Even tho you expect to use direct action at some point, I'm too, not promise anything, it's just unimaginable for me to use it now.
 * [[File:VEnlight.png]] Ultra-Enlightenment - I suppose you just want to wait until liberalism become this, but actually progress and regress are entirely subjective and there is no direction of history, markets will always be here, but not neccessary in the form of capitalism and liberalism.
 * [[File:HelloThere314Icon.png]] HelloThere314ism - Great praxis and passion for knowledge. Sadly I dislike Deleuze, Foucault, Guattari and whole Situationism.
 * [[File:Autistic-anticiv.png]] Autistic Anti-Civ Anarcho-Nihilism - Great but pessimistic.
 * [[File:NeophibunV2.png]] Neo-Phibunsongkhram Thought - While we have almost nothing in common, your strategy in life is fight for power inside of legal framework, attempt to improve current system of Thailand, good luck then.
 * [[File:Zhah_pixels.png]] Zhahravaughanism - Why should we free workers from factory of desire?

Bad

 * [[File:Ioist.png]] Ego-Progressivism - We are very different, you support revolution, insurrection, "pink terror and queer rage must be unleashed", I really don't see how can revolution help queer people, when their comfort on a basic level will be gone. And theory of classes is something I can't agree, all people are just individuals with their own goals.
 * [[File:PosadasComrade.png]] PosadasComrade - Unbarable page colors 0/10.

Others
Read: Alan Carter - Analytical Anarchism LordCompost86 - The Sovereign Egoist: The State of Nature in Hobbes and Stirner Paul Émile de Puydt - Panarchy Max Stirner - The Unique and Its Property Rene Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy Aristotle - Ethics Sigmund Freud - Civilization and it's Disconnects Henry Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson Bob Black - An Anarchist Response to Crime Bob Black - The Abolition of Work Benjamin Tucker - Individual Liberty Platon - Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo Platon - Cratylus, Theatetus, Sophist, Statesman Platon - Parmenides, Philebus, Symposium, Phaedrus Immanuel Kant - Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals Post-Anarchism: a reader Reading: Baruch Spinoza - Ethics

Comments

 * - Add moi?
 * - Add me?
 * [[File:Autistic-anticiv.png]] - Some day I written alternative interpretation of Anarcho-Nihilism, that doesn't focus only on "life is bad" but on negation of politics in few words, can you consider it? I quite agree with sentence that being existential nihilist and alive is impossible.
 * - Ok, I admit that your anarcho-nihilism is different and movement itself is too diverse to even put under the same umbrella. So I will remove my comment on it entirely.
 * [[File:PosadasComrade.png]] PosadasComrade Add me


 * add me :333