Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 6,314 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!

    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki


    This page contains possibly disturbing content for:

    Socialists (Actual Economic Theory)

    Neoluddites (Acceptance of Medicine)

    Nationalists (Rejection of Tribalism)

    Join the Beryist Society now! Here is the link.

    “There is no way to receive a mainstream university education, read the Times every morning, trust both of them, and not be a progressive. Unless, of course, you’re an idiot. But”

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”

    “In many ways nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth. Anyone can believe in the truth. To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army.”

    “The great cause of inequality in the distribution of wealth is inequality in the ownership of land. The ownership of land is the great fundamental fact which ultimately determines the social, the political, and consequently the intellectual and moral condition of a people.”

    “Everything in this life passes away — only God remains, only He is worth struggling towards. We have a choice: to follow the way of this world, of the society that surrounds us, and thereby find ourselves outside of God; or to choose the way of life, to choose God Who calls us and for Whom our heart is searching.”

    “Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists.”

    “Man in general, if reduced to himself, is too wicked to be free.”

    Constantine Thought is basically an “ideology” (it’s more like a personal thought or beliefs) that exists after the downfall of Remodulism . It is basically the same as the latter except Constantine Thought takes a more existentialist, metamodernist, organic, and Christian approach to the technocapital.

    Before we get started in explaining what my beliefs are all about, let’s take some quiz I have made first (or user test if you want that instead). I think most people will be confused of what I believe in since I have stopped believing in what Remodulism believed in. I’d just say that I think the free market theory of Henry George is the best way to combat cronyism, the technocapital and God are the forerunners of civilization, a traditional organic monarchy is much more preferable to a modern secular state, the Eastern Roman Empire as a state has inspired my views on culture and governance, and individualism as a philosophical standpoint is the best argument against nihilism. So, let’s get to the point below.

    These are the five icons that describe my current beliefs: (////)



    • I oppose strong Intellectual Property protection as it is seen as a form of government intervention in the free market. IP laws usually restrict market competition and can lead to monopolies or oligopolies, thereby thwarting the free-market system's competitive nature. IP protection can also create an artificial scarcity that leads to higher prices for goods and services, which can be unaffordable for many people. This, in turn, can limit innovation, especially in less developed countries where companies and individuals may not have the resources to pay for IP licenses or legal fees associated with defending IP claims. Moreover, IP laws infringe on freedom of expression, as they allow corporations and individuals to control and restrict access to information and ideas. I view IP protection as an unjust restriction on individual liberty, as it limits the free flow of information. In summary, strong IP laws can be seen as an unnecessary government intervention that can stifle competition, lead to higher prices, limit access to information and hinder innovation.


    • In my opinion, Corporations, as engines of economic activity, can contribute to overall economic growth through job creation, innovation, and investment in infrastructure. Corporations often focus on efficiency and productivity to remain competitive. This emphasis on efficiency can lead to cost savings and increased output, potentially benefiting consumers. Corporations, particularly in technology and research-intensive industries, can drive innovation by investing in research and development. New technologies and products can improve the quality of life and economic competitiveness. Corporations can facilitate international trade and globalization by producing goods and services that are distributed globally, leading to increased access to a variety of products and services. Large corporations can contribute significant tax revenue to governments, which can be used to fund public services and infrastructure development. Corporations provide employment opportunities for a substantial portion of the population, offering income and benefits to individuals and their families. Some corporations engage in philanthropic activities and social responsibility programs, contributing to social causes, disaster relief efforts, and community development. Corporations can also access large pools of capital through financial markets, which can be used for investment in growth and expansion.


    • I would consider myself as a counter-economist. Kinda weird, but I’ll explain. Counter-economics emphasizes that all transactions should be voluntary and consensual, with no use of force or coercion. Counter-economists typically subscribe to the non-aggression principle, which means refraining from initiating violence or aggression against others. Counter-economics operates in markets that are typically unregulated or less regulated than traditional markets, often referred to as "gray" or "black" markets. Counter-economics often involves the use of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, which can provide a degree of anonymity and freedom from traditional financial institutions. Some counter-economists promote barter systems and agorist practices (engaging in counter-economic activities) as a means to subvert the traditional economy.


    • I believe that the actual power and recognised power of governance (especially regarding to ownership) should be closely aligned as much as possible. I believe that liberal democracy as a form of governance should be dismantled in favor of more elitist or autocratic forms of governance, especially based on wealth, for the benefits of the corporate kingdom’s economy. Think of Thaksin Shinawatra (the former CEO of ShinCorp) being crowned as the King of Thailand and you’ll get what I mean.

    Free Trade

    • I am in favor of Free Trade aka Economic Globalization. High tariffs and Autarky only hurt the country’s economy than it helps. Autarky can cause economic delay, starvation, and wars. Free Trade allows small countries to gain access on foreign products with higher qualities, and also preserves every nations’ political independence from wars. In order for a country’s economy to be successful, a country should be very permissive on free trade, which allows goods to be exchanged with very few to no restrictions, whether on local, regional, or global levels. I am in favor of free trade with international market economies for resources that can develop the country’s economy.


    • I consider myself as a Georgist, the one who actually believes in what Henry George believed in, unlike social democrats, mutualists, distributists, socialists, or whatever, who claim that georgism is anticapitalist or leftist economic theory. I’ll tell you a thing about it. First of all, despite the common misconception, georgism doesn't simply consist of an economy applying unimproved land value taxation. Rather, georgism is a movement of tax abolitionism, perceiving forms of governmental funding such as income tax or sales tax to be tyrannical, both on an economic level due to theft, and on a privacy level, many of those taxes (Called "deadweight taxation") requiring the government to have important knowledge over your job and spending habits. Instead, classical georgism advocates for an universal levy on the market value of owned soil, including natural resources, as neither has been produced by the owner, it is unfair to let them profit from it, only allowing profit to come from the ulterior improvements (Such as buildings or refining) done by the land owner. This form of tax has many benefits, such as:
      • 1. No deadweight loss (Difference between production and actual consumption of goods and services).
      • 2. Incentivizing efficient usage of land and resources, development, doing more while owning less.
      • 3. Proceeding to a flat, yet naturally progressive levy, as the rich who appropriate more area have to pay more.
      • 4. Easing up pre-existing property taxes on both improved urban land and rural agrarian ground, instead weighting more on non-used surface.
      • 5. Stable governmental income, as the amount and value of land in a defined territory doesn't change with time.
    • It is important to note that georgism is not an ideology opposing landlords, nor promoting communal access to land, but solely a system aiming to make land exchange responsible, fair and efficient. In fact, actions such as eminent domain or city planning would be discouraged, as it impairs healthy and free trade of plots. As such, ideologies that want collective control of the land are not georgism, if not straight up opposed to it.

    Gig Economy

    • I am in favor of the Gig Economy as the workers in the gig economy have flexibility in choosing when and where they work. They may take on multiple gigs simultaneously, and the duration of employment is often short-term. I think many gig workers find opportunities through digital platforms and online marketplaces that connect them with clients or customers. Examples include ride-sharing apps, freelancing websites, and on-demand service platforms. Gig workers are often classified as independent contractors or freelancers rather than employees. This means they are responsible for their own taxes, benefits, and insurance. Gig workers typically perform specific tasks or projects for clients, and they are compensated for the completion of these tasks. The nature of the work can vary widely, from driving for a ride-sharing service to providing graphic design services. Technology plays a crucial role in the gig economy, facilitating the matching of workers with gigs through online platforms and apps.


    • I am in favor of an industrialized economy. Industrialization typically leads to increased economic output and growth. The shift from agrarian to industrial activities often results in higher productivity and efficiency, contributing to overall economic expansion. The establishment of industries creates job opportunities for a significant portion of the population. This can help reduce unemployment rates and provide individuals with a means of earning income. Industrialization is associated with the use of advanced machinery and technology, leading to increased productivity. Automation and mechanization allow for faster and more efficient production processes. Industrialization enables economies to diversify beyond agriculture. This diversification can reduce dependence on a single sector, making the economy more resilient to external shocks and market fluctuations. Industrialization often drives technological innovation. The need for increased efficiency and production capacity encourages the development and adoption of new technologies, leading to advancements in various industries. Industrialization is often accompanied by urbanization, as people move from rural areas to urban centers where industries are concentrated. Urbanization can result in improved infrastructure, better living standards, and access to services. As industrialization progresses, there is a potential for an increase in the standard of living. Higher incomes, improved access to goods and services, and technological advancements can contribute to an improved quality of life. Industrialized economies are often more competitive on the global stage. They can produce goods more efficiently, engage in international trade, and contribute to the global economy. Industrialization necessitates the development of infrastructure such as transportation networks, power generation, and communication systems. These infrastructure improvements benefit both industrial and non-industrial sectors. Industrialization can bring about social development by providing education and skill development opportunities. It can lead to a more educated and skilled workforce, enhancing human capital. Governments often benefit from increased tax revenues as industrial activities contribute to economic growth. These revenues can be used for public services, infrastructure development, and social programs.


    • I support laissez-faire economy, free banking and bringing back the Gold Standard, as I align myself with certain thinkers of the Austrian School of Economics, such as Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Friedrich August von Hayek, or Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The free markets will always be with us, as excessive economic regulations and planning cause more harm than good for the economy, as innovations are more likely to have high quality in the market economies. The Central Banks shouldn’t have a large say in the economics. The Central Bank only defends monopolies, and the fiat currency is a tool for the government to control the economy especially Keynesians, because the government prints fiat money such as banknotes, which cause the fiat currency to lose their values each year, causing inflation and net deficit. I am supportive of the competitive crypto-currencies based on the Gold Standard because to make the government stop bossing around with the economy, privatization of currencies is necessary, as what Friedrich August von Hayek said about it. Taxation is theft, and people shouldn’t pay unnecessary taxes (excluding the land value tax), which can hurt the economy in long term and gives the too much of a say. The government should be fiscally responsible so that the country won’t be drown in debt. In short, I support the single-tax system in order to be fiscally responsible without the government wasting taxpayers’ money irresponsibly.


    • I would consider myself as a firm supporter of the Pigouvian tax, as Pigouvian taxes address market failures that occur when private decision-making does not take into account the external costs imposed on society. By taxing activities that generate negative externalities, these taxes correct the market's failure to allocate resources efficiently. Pigouvian taxes encourage economic agents (individuals and firms) to consider the full social cost of their actions when making decisions. This leads to a more efficient allocation of resources as individuals and firms adjust their behavior to minimize the negative externalities. The primary benefit of Pigouvian taxes is their potential to reduce or eliminate negative externalities. When the cost of harmful activities is higher due to taxation, individuals and firms are incentivized to consume or produce less of the goods or services causing harm. Pigouvian taxes are commonly used to address environmental externalities. For example, carbon taxes aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. By making polluting activities more expensive, these taxes encourage the adoption of cleaner technologies and practices. Pigouvian taxes can incentivize innovation in cleaner and more environmentally friendly technologies and practices, as firms seek ways to reduce their tax liability. By reducing negative externalities, Pigouvian taxes can contribute to an improved quality of life for individuals by mitigating the adverse effects of pollution, congestion, and other external costs. Pigouvian taxes can be structured in a way that minimizes their regressive impact on low-income individuals and provides social safety nets or rebates to offset any disproportionate burden. Pigouvian taxes can be tailored to address specific externalities and can be adjusted over time as conditions change or as society's understanding of external costs evolves.

    Revenue Maximization

    • I believe that revenue maximization in a neocameralist system is argued to incentivize the government-like corporation to operate efficiently and competently. The corporation has a direct financial interest in providing effective services to its "customers" (citizens). By treating governance as a service provided by a corporation, I argue that introducing market forces and competition can lead to better outcomes. A government-like corporation that fails to provide essential services or acts inefficiently risks losing customers (citizens) to other competing entities. Neocameralism suggests a shift from a traditional state-centric approach to a customer-centric one. In this view, citizens are seen as customers who pay for services, and revenue maximization becomes a way to ensure that the government-like entity is responsive to their needs. Revenue maximization is seen by me as a means to ensure the financial sustainability of the government-like corporation. By generating sufficient revenue, the entity can invest in infrastructure, security, and public services without relying on inefficient taxation or accumulating excessive debt. Neocameralism often proposes using clear performance metrics and indicators to assess the effectiveness of the government-like corporation. Revenue maximization can be tied to the delivery of high-quality services and efficient governance, creating a direct link between financial success and effective performance. The pursuit of revenue maximization may drive the government-like corporation to innovate and adopt new technologies and practices. This could lead to continuous improvements in governance, public services, and overall efficiency.

    Post-Libertarian Monarchy


    • I am critical of identity politics and I believe that it is a form of tribalism that can be harmful to society. One of the strongest arguments against identity politics from my perspective is that it creates divisions within society and leads to an emphasis on group identity over individual identity. This can lead to a breakdown in social cohesion and a lack of trust between different groups. In my view, this can ultimately lead to conflict and instability. Another argument against identity politics from my perspective is that it encourages people to view themselves as victims or oppressors based on their group identity. This can lead to a sense of entitlement or resentment that is not necessarily based on merit or individual achievement. I believe that this can lead to a culture of victimhood that undermines personal responsibility and accountability. Finally, I argue that identity politics is often based on a flawed understanding of history and society. I believe that it oversimplifies complex social and historical dynamics and ignores the role of individual agency and choice. I argue that identity politics is a form of reductionism that fails to take into account the complexity and diversity of human experience.


    • I am in favor of a traditional aristocracy, as traditional aristocracies often claimed to be meritocratic, arguing that leadership and privilege were based on qualities such as lineage, education, and personal merit. The belief was that the aristocracy had inherent qualities that made them fit for leadership. I often argue that hereditary rule provided stability and continuity. The passing down of leadership from one generation to the next was seen as a way to maintain order and prevent political upheaval. Aristocracies asserted that a ruling elite, often born into positions of power, possessed the wisdom and experience necessary to make decisions for the benefit of society. This contrasted with the idea of rule by the masses, which they believed could lead to populism and instability. Traditional aristocracies were often associated with the preservation of cultural and societal traditions. The hereditary nature of aristocratic rule was thought to maintain continuity with the past. Advocates of aristocracy like me argue that a hereditary ruling class, with education and training in governance passed down through generations, is better equipped to make wise and efficient decisions compared to the potential volatility of decisions made by the broader population in a democratic system. Traditional aristocracies were seen as having a long-term vision for the well-being of the state, as their hereditary status allowed them to plan for the future beyond short-term electoral cycles. Aristocracy was seen by some as a check against the potential dangers of populism. By placing power in the hands of a select few, there was a belief that the ruling class could prevent rash decisions made by an uninformed or emotional electorate. I argue that aristocracy contributed to social order and hierarchy, providing a structured society where individuals knew their roles and responsibilities.

    Classical International Law

    • I envision for a return of the classical international law, as it recognized the existence of sovereign states as the primary actors in the international system. These states were considered independent entities with the authority to govern their territories and conduct foreign relations. Much of classical international law was based on customary practices that had developed over time. These customs included rules and norms related to diplomacy, trade, warfare, and territorial sovereignty. These practices were not always codified in written agreements but were widely recognized and followed. States often entered into bilateral treaties with one another to formalize specific agreements and alliances. These treaties covered a wide range of topics, including trade, border disputes, military alliances, and diplomatic relations. Treaties were typically negotiated and ratified by the sovereign rulers of the states involved. Diplomacy played a crucial role in classical international law. States established diplomatic relations through the exchange of ambassadors and envoys. Diplomats were responsible for conducting negotiations, conveying messages, and representing their states' interests abroad. The principle of territorial sovereignty was emerging, emphasizing that each state had exclusive authority over its territory. States were generally expected to respect the territorial integrity of other states and refrain from interference in their domestic affairs. Disputes between states were often resolved through diplomatic negotiations, arbitration, or, in some cases, war. Diplomats and envoys were instrumental in mediating disputes and seeking peaceful resolutions. The balance of power was a central concept in classical international relations. States sought to maintain a balance of power to prevent any single state from becoming too dominant and threatening the stability of the region. This often involved forming alliances and coalitions.


    • I advocate for a return to a monarchical system of governance, where a sovereign entity, often referred to as a "Patch" or "corporate state," acts as the owner of a territory. This sovereign entity functions similarly to a corporation, and the leader is often likened to a CEO or a board of directors. I envision a governance that works like a large privatized business. The sovereign entity that owns the territory operates it as a for-profit enterprise, focusing on maintaining order, security, and providing services efficiently. I place a strong emphasis on the rule of law, with laws and regulations being consistently enforced to provide predictability and stability.

    Exit-oriented Politics

    • I place a strong emphasis on the concept of "exit" over "voice." Citizens or residents are considered customers of the Patch and can choose to "exit" by switching their allegiance or citizenship to another Patch if they are dissatisfied. This competition among Patches is believed to create an incentive for better governance. After all, as a Hoppean myself, I am against the concept of democracy that put us into majoritarian tyranny via zombie politics, therefore, I am fully against things like the parliament, political parties, or populism.


    • I argue that a multipolar world allows for greater cultural diversity and the coexistence of various civilizations. In a multipolar system, different cultures, traditions, and ways of life can flourish without being dominated by a single hegemonic power. Multipolarity supports the idea of state sovereignty. Each pole in the multipolar system represents a sovereign state or a group of states that can make independent decisions without being subject to the will of a single superpower. I see multipolarity as a system that inherently maintains a balance of power. No single pole should have overwhelming dominance, and this balance reduces the likelihood of one power imposing its will on others. Multipolarity promotes geopolitical pluralism, allowing different regions of the world to have a say in global affairs. This pluralism counters the idea of a unipolar system where power and influence are concentrated in one center. I suggest that a multipolar world is more resilient and stable. In the absence of a single superpower, disruptions in one region are less likely to have a cascading effect on the entire world. Multipolarity encourages both competition and cooperation among different poles. While states may compete for influence, resources, and power, there is also an incentive for cooperation on global challenges such as terrorism and economic stability.


    • I support the concept of Mencius Moldbug's idea of a "Patchwork" system. It is a concept for a society structure that is made up of small, sovereign and competitive city-states or "sovereign corporations". Each city-state or corporation would have its own unique set of laws, customs, and political systems, and citizens would be free to choose which city-state they want to live in based on which set of principles and values they align with. Citizens would be free to move between these city-states or sovereign corporations, and the competition between these entities would drive innovation and efficiency, as citizens would be able to vote with their feet and move to a more desirable sovereign corporation if their current one was not meeting their needs. The Patchwork system acknowledges that people often have very different and even opposing visions of how society should be structured, and instead of trying to impose one vision of society upon everyone, the Patchwork system seeks to create a diverse and competitive marketplace of societal structures. In a Patchwork system, these city-states or sovereign corporations would be ruled by for-profit companies, which would be responsible for providing essential services such as security, infrastructure, and welfare. These companies would compete with each other for consumers, and citizens would vote with their wallets or feet, choosing to live in a sovereign corporation whose system of government and values align with their own. The competition between these entities would drive innovation and efficiency and force them to continually improve their services to attract and retain citizens.


    • I align myself with certain post-libertarian thinkers, as I know that libertarian parties in electoral politics will never win elections. In praxis, it can go into two ways, one is that I’ll wait until the resentment of the current liberal democracy goes to the breaking point, or second, the King abolishes the entire parliament in favor of returning to absolute monarchy. Thus, I am in favor of increasing the funding of the police, while treating them as corporate-owned guards to enhance the efficiency of the police force. The police should exist to enforce the law to protect the citizens from having their liberty stripped by criminals and ensure that the NAP will be protected. The police should have the rights to fight against domestic terrorists like Antifa or the Alt-Right militia. I am supportive of the concept of free speech. It is necessary for an individual to have freedom to express his or her opinions. However, extremists and political demagogues such as communists, fascists, nationalists, liberals, or populists should not be able to take power in the government, as democracy will be completely abolished under a post-libertarian state.


    • I support a traditional organic monarchy as a form of government that is based on the model of the medieval Ayutthayan Kingdom. The basic idea behind this form of government is that the monarch holds absolute power, but this power is decentralized across a number of different regions or principalities within the kingdom. Under this kind of system, the monarch would hold ultimate power and decision-making authority, but would grant significant autonomy to local nobles or lords within his kingdom. These nobles would be responsible for governing their own territories and ensuring order and stability within their own local communities. In exchange for this autonomy, the local nobles would be required to pay taxes and provide military support to the king, as well as to maintain law and order within their own territories. This system allowed for greater flexibility and responsiveness to local needs and concerns, while still ensuring a strong central authority and the ability to mobilize resources quickly in times of crisis. Overall, while the specifics of how a medieval decentralized absolute monarchy would work varied depending on the time and place, it can be seen as a system that sought to balance the benefits of local autonomy with the need for strong central authority and unity. Although an idea of a Monarch-CEO running the country isn’t a bad idea, as the state will be able to make profits with the Joint-Stock Enterprises and Corporation to increase the state fundings in exchange for the population to pay much lower taxes in form of a voluntary one. A Monarch-CEO should be a member of the Chakri Dynasty, being religious, and moral. The succession line should be hereditary like a traditional monarchy.


    • I am 100% theocratic in terms of governance, as I oppose the separation of the state and the church, as the religious clergy is necessary for the organic state to be run under the guidance of Christianity and its values, to keep society stable, moral, and free. The clergy and the state are to complement each other, exhibiting mutual respect with neither institution presuming to dominate the other. However, a theocracy can also have freedom of religions too, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, the religious clergy should not claim to be above the state like the Papal States, which goes against Symphonia of Orthodox Christianity. Modern secular states or dictatorships are always tyrannical as those types of states have materialistic cults of personalities that delude people away from what’s truly moral or not and seek to destroy the organicism that makes the state stable and free, as the tyrannies of the 20th century have proven about that.

    Existential Neoreactionaryism


    • Humanism is based on an unrealistic view of human nature, as I argue that Humanism assumes that humans are inherently rational, moral, and cooperative, which is not supported by empirical evidence. According to me, humans are actually driven by irrational desires and emotions, and are often violent and selfish. Therefore, the Humanist project of improving society through education and moral enlightenment is doomed to fail. Humanism is a secular religion, as I claim that Humanism has replaced traditional religions as the dominant worldview in modern societies. I argue that Humanism has its own set of dogmas, such as the belief in progress, equality, and democracy, which are taken as articles of faith and are not subject to empirical testing or rational scrutiny. Humanism is responsible for the decline of classical civilization, as I attribute many of the problems of modern society, such as political polarization, social unrest, and cultural decline, to the influence of Humanism. I argue that Humanism has led to the erosion of traditional institutions and values, and has created a society that is fragmented, atomized, and lacking in social cohesion. Humanism is incompatible with modern science and technology, as I suggest that Humanism's focus on humanistic values and goals is incompatible with the pursuit of objective knowledge and technological progress. I argue that Humanism has led to a "softening" of the sciences, as researchers are more concerned with the social and ethical implications of their work than with advancing scientific knowledge for its own sake.


    • I call myself a conservative, but not in a modern sense of it. Why? Let me tell you this. Conservatism isn’t mainly about limited government or conserving the status quo, but rather, I believe that it is about conserving the sacred things of our old traditions. Social reforms, in my opinion, are inevitable. Yes, even Edmund Burke knew that, but those things should only be done with good reasons, and not do whatever the revolutionaries want to do. I, as a classical conservative, emphasize the value of tradition, established institutions, and social hierarchies. They believe that these provide stability, continuity, and a sense of order in society. I am generally skeptical of radical social or political change and prefer incremental reform over revolutionary upheaval. This is rooted in the belief that too much change can disrupt the social fabric and lead to unintended consequences. I often favor strong authority figures and hierarchical structures, whether in government, religion, or other institutions. I believe in the importance of order and discipline. I stress the significance of community and communitarian values. Classical conservatives like me believe that strong local communities are essential for social cohesion and personal well-being. I also tend to support limited government, although my reasons may differ from modern ao called “conservatives”. Classical conservatives like me often view government as a necessary but potentially intrusive force that should be restrained to protect individual liberties.


    • Social Darwinists like me argue that human societies can be analogized to biological organisms. Just as natural selection works in the biological realm, they contended that competition and survival of the fittest apply to human societies. I emphasize individualism and personal responsibility. According to this perspective, individuals and groups are responsible for their own success or failure, and the most competent and adaptable should naturally rise to the top. I believe that applying the principles of natural selection to the economy would result in greater efficiency. I argue that competition would lead to the best allocation of resources, improved technologies, and overall economic progress. The idea of meritocracy is inherent in Social Darwinism. Advocates argued that a society based on survival of the fittest would naturally develop into a meritocratic system where individuals succeed based on their abilities and efforts. I see societal progress as an evolutionary process. They believed that allowing the fittest individuals and groups to dominate would lead to the advancement of society as a whole. I argue that Social Darwinism could provide a natural and stable social order. I believe that by allowing the most capable individuals and groups to lead, social harmony and stability would be maintained. Social Darwinism is sometimes used to justify imperialistic practices. I argue that dominant nations have evolved to their superior status through natural processes and had the right, or even duty, to expand and guide less advanced societies.


    • I consider myself as an ethical deontologist and an anti-utilitarian. I believe in the existence of moral rules or duties that individuals are obligated to follow. I believe in the idea of the categorical imperative, a principle that states that an action is morally required if one can consistently will that everyone adopt the maxim (principle) governing that action. In other words, ethical principles must be universalizable. Deontologists like me often argue that certain actions have intrinsic moral value, regardless of their consequences. For example, telling the truth, keeping promises, and respecting autonomy may be seen as inherently moral acts. I argue that utilitarianism may overlook the rights and dignity of individuals. The consequentialist focus on maximizing overall happiness or pleasure might lead to situations where the rights of a few are sacrificed for the perceived greater good. Deontologists like me contend that utilitarianism may justify actions that are ethically problematic or involve violating fundamental moral rules ("dirty hands" problem). For example, harming innocent individuals might be justified if it produces better overall consequences. I emphasize the importance of moral constraints and argue that utilitarianism lacks these constraints. Without fixed moral rules, there is concern that utilitarianism might endorse actions that are intuitively morally wrong. I question the feasibility of quantifying happiness or well-being, a central tenet of utilitarianism. I argue that such quantification is subjective and problematic, making the calculation of overall happiness unreliable. I emphasize the value of individual autonomy and argue that utilitarianism might sacrifice individual autonomy for the sake of maximizing utility.


    • I consider myself as an existentialist, strongly influenced by Fyodor Dostoevsky, as he delved into the human condition, individual existence, and the search for meaning. His characters frequently confront the existential crisis of existence and grapple with the "burden of freedom." I believe that suffering had the potential to lead to redemption and moral transformation. I see the problem of evil and theodicy, particularly in Dostoevsky’s novel "The Brothers Karamazov." He examined the question of how a just and loving God could coexist with the suffering and evil in the world. His exploration of this issue reflects his deep religious and philosophical concerns. I am critical of rationalist and utopian ideologies, particularly those associated with the Enlightenment. I believe that these ideologies often underestimated the complexity of human nature and the capacity for evil. I am a vocal critic of nihilism, a philosophical perspective that rejects traditional values and beliefs. I believe that nihilism could lead to moral and spiritual decay and explored the consequences of nihilistic thinking in his works.


    • My beliefs on individualism are centered around the concept of the "will to power" by Friedrich Nietzsche. I believe that individuals possess a fundamental drive or will to assert their own individuality and exercise their power and creativity. This concept encourages individuals to overcome obstacles and assert their own values and desires. I call for a reevaluation and transvaluation of traditional moral and social values. I believe that many conventional values, such as humility and selflessness, were products of slave morality and hindered the development of the individual. I encourage individuals to question and redefine their values based on their own experiences and desires. I introduce the idea of the "Übermensch" to you, which represents an individual who transcends conventional morality and societal norms. The Übermensch creates their own values and lives according to their own will to power, free from the constraints of herd mentality. I strongly criticize herd mentality, which I see as a conformist and herd-like behavior that stifles individual creativity and authenticity. I encourage individuals to break free from the influence of the herd and think independently. I advocate for an acceptance of one's fate, including both the positive and negative aspects of life. Embracing one's fate is an essential aspect of individualism and personal growth. I propose the idea of eternal recurrence, which asks individuals to imagine that they must relive their lives in an endless cycle. This concept encourages individuals to live their lives in such a way that they would be willing to relive them for all eternity, emphasizing the importance of personal authenticity and self-expression. Individualism celebrates the creative expression of the self. Individuals are encouraged to explore their unique talents, passions, and desires and to express themselves authentically. I am critical of collectivism, which I see as repressive and inhibiting of individual growth. I call for a "revaluation of all values" to break free from these constraints. I celebrate the Dionysian spirit, which represents passion, ecstasy, and the embrace of life's primal and instinctual aspects. This celebration of the irrational and emotional aspects of life contrasts with the Apollonian, which represents order and rationality. Individualism places a significant emphasis on individual responsibility for one's life and actions. It encourages individuals to take ownership of their choices and to actively shape their own destinies.


    • I, as a Metamodernist, place importance on affect, which refers to the emotional or experiential aspect of human existence. I recognize the limitations of postmodern irony and detachment and encourages sincerity, emotional engagement, and authenticity. While postmodernism often rejected grand narratives, metamodernism does not entirely discard them. It allows for the construction of new narratives, myths, and frameworks to provide meaning and purpose, even in a fragmented, complex world. I acknowledge the challenges of finding meaning and identity in an increasingly interconnected and rapidly changing world. It explores the ways in which individuals and societies grapple with existential questions. I introduce the concept of "meta-irony" and "oscillation" as a mode of engagement with the world. This involves moving back and forth between sincerity and irony, engagement and detachment, as a way to navigate the complexities of contemporary existence. I encourage critical reflection and self-awareness in addressing cultural and social issues. It recognizes the need for a nuanced understanding of complex problems and the willingness to question and adapt one's beliefs. I place a premium on creativity, innovation, and the exploration of new forms of artistic and cultural expression. I also incorporate elements of spirituality and transcendence into my worldview. I explore questions of the divine, the mystical, and the numinous as part of their quest for meaning.


    • For those who don’t know about what the Dark Enlightenment is about, I’ll tell you, as I take massive influences from this philosophy, and consider myself as one of the proponents of the NRx. The Dark Enlightenment (or Neoreaction) is basically an anti-progressive, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and anti-egalitarian political or philosophical ideology, seeking to restore the old forms of governance and natural hierarchies. Neoreactionaries, like me, think that the government should be ruled by certain group of elites, who are superior to the masses. I take the influences of the NRx by reading certain thinkers and theories such as Mencius Moldbug/Curtis Yarvin’s blogs from Unqualified Reservations, or The Dark Enlightenment by Nick Land. I view that Protestantism and its ethics have been the thing that gave roots to the Cathedral, which is neither a person nor an organization. Rather, the Cathedral is a term for a collective of what embodies the Enlightenment, including schools, universities, mass media, entertainment, and such, that promotes themselves as ideas of secular humanism.


    • Counter-Enlightenment thinkers such as me might argue that obscurantism helps preserve traditional values, beliefs, and practices. They may see the spread of knowledge as a threat to established cultural and religious norms. Obscurantism may be seen as a form of resistance to what is perceived as excessive rationalism. I argue that an overemphasis on reason and science, as promoted by the Enlightenment, can lead to a devaluation of other forms of knowledge, such as intuition and tradition. I argue that maintaining a certain level of obscurity helps to uphold social order. Too much knowledge, they may contend, could disrupt existing power structures and societal hierarchies. Obscurantism could be considered a means of preventing social disruption. I argue that rapid changes brought about by the Enlightenment could lead to chaos and upheavals. Obscurantism may be seen as preserving the mystery and wonder in life. I argue that a certain degree of ambiguity and mysticism contributes to a richer human experience. I often critique the Enlightenment's emphasis on universal principles. I argue that obscurantism allows for a recognition of cultural and individual differences that are undermined by universalistic claims. I place a strong emphasis on faith and revelation. Obscurantism, in this context, may be viewed as a means of preserving the importance of beliefs that are not subject to rational scrutiny.

    Orthodox Christianity

    • I view the Orthodox Church as the one and only true church of Christ. There’s a lot that could be said here, but the reason why I believe this is that I examined both the Scriptures and the early history of Christianity, and I became convinced that the only church that matches them both is Orthodoxy. Particularly formative for me were the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John. The church life he described was definitely not what I saw in Evangelicalism. Since he was someone who learned how to be a Christian from the Apostles themselves, I wanted to be in his church. Orthodoxy takes history seriously and doesn’t gloss over the hard stuff. I also don’t pick and choose from early Christian witness to develop a streamlined “system” of theology that is easy to swallow. Rather, because Orthodoxy is truly the community descended from the Apostles, within my theological memory are centuries of dogma, doctrine and theological reflection. Not all of it is totally consistent or easy to sort out, but it is nevertheless one great river of truth with an overall unified direction. One doesn’t see that in the same way in Roman Catholicism (there are several major turns in history), and it is impossible to find that in Protestantism. Most Protestants aren’t even concerned with it.

    Technological Determinism

    • Well, atleast Marx got something right, I guess? Let’s get started. I, as a technological determinist, argue that technological advancements have a profound and often deterministic impact on society and culture. I believe that changes in technology drive and shape social and cultural transformations. I generally assume that technological progress is inevitable and that it follows a linear trajectory of improvement. I often view technological development as a natural and unstoppable force. According to me, technology has a degree of autonomy, meaning that it can develop independently of human intentions or control. In this view, technology follows its own logic and evolution. I argue that technology influences human behavior and shapes social practices. They believe that the introduction of new technologies can lead to changes in how people work, communicate, and interact. Technology is seen as a catalyst for cultural and structural changes within societies. It can disrupt established norms and institutions, leading to the emergence of new social orders and practices. I propose the existence of technological imperatives, which are pressures or mandates that drive societies to adopt and adapt to new technologies. These imperatives are often seen as external forces compelling change. I emphasize the role of innovation as a primary driver of societal transformation. They argue that technological innovations, such as the printing press or the internet, have had profound and often unpredictable effects on society. I study how technologies are adopted and diffused within societies. They examine the impact of technology on various social, economic, and cultural aspects of different communities. Some proponents of technological determinism, including me, use the concept of technological paradigms to explain how different eras are characterized by dominant technologies that shape the culture and economy of those times. I am critical of the notion of human agency and argue that individual or collective human actions have limited influence on the course of technological development.

    Virtue Ethics

    • I believe in virtue ethics. I believe that the most crucial aspect of ethics is the development of good character. Virtues are positive character traits like honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, and integrity. I suggest that individuals should strive to cultivate and embody virtues. These virtues act as guides for making ethical decisions. Virtue ethicists often emphasize the concept of eudaimonia, which can be translated as human flourishing or well-being. Virtuous living is seen as essential to achieving eudaimonia, and virtues contribute to a fulfilling and meaningful life. Practical wisdom, or phronesis, is considered crucial in virtue ethics. It involves the ability to make sound moral judgments and decisions in specific situations. Virtue ethicists like me argue that virtues contribute to the development of practical wisdom.

    My Political Journey

    Name Time Ideologies
    Apolitical Phase 200?-2018 + +
    Thaksinist Phase 2018-2019 + +
    3rd Way Dengist Phase 2019-2020 + +
    Sam Kib Phase 2020-2021 + +
    Neoconservative Populist Phase aka First Nesanel Thought 2021-2022 + +
    Paleolibertarian Phase aka Second Nesanel Thought 2022-2022 + +
    Neo-Phibunist Phase aka Third Nesanel Thought 2022-2023 + +
    Neocameralist Phase aka Remodulism 2023-2023 + +
    Byzantine Libertarian Phase aka Constantine Thought 2023- + +


    Constantine Thought, as the name suggests, represents the personality of Theodosius Constantinus. He is often apathetic and pessimistic towards ongoing things around the world. He detests hedonism, barbarity, and anarchy, which are slowly destroying civilization under the name of liberalism, and wishes for the return of an orderly, hierarchical, and noble society of the long gone Roman Empire. There are barely anything that can make him truly happy.

    How to Draw

    Chi Rho

    Flag of Constantine Thought (Chi Rho Design)
    1. Draw a ball
    2. Fill it with dark red
    3. Draw a gold Chi Rho
    4. Add the eyes
    5. Add the Eastern Roman crown
    6. Add the imperial orb/globus cruciger on the right hand
    7. Add the Roman labarum/banner with the Chi Rho on top and dark red flag with three gold colored circles on the left hand and you’re done!
    Color Name HEX RGB
    Dark Red #890014 137, 0, 20
    Gold #ffcb10 255, 203, 16


    Flag of Constantine Thought (Labarum Design)
    1. Draw a ball
    2. Fill it with dark red
    3. Draw three gold colored circles horizontally at the middle of the flag
    4. Add the eyes
    5. Add the Eastern Roman crown
    6. Add the imperial orb/globus cruciger on the right hand
    7. Add the Roman labarum/banner with the Chi Rho on top and dark red flag with three gold colored circles on the left hand and you’re done!
    Color Name HEX RGB
    Dark Red #890014 137, 0, 20
    Gold #ffcb10 255, 203, 16

    Komnenoi Eagle

    Flag of Constantine Thought (Komnenoi Eagle Design)
    1. Draw a ball
    2. Fill it with dark red
    3. Draw a gold double headed eagle with a crown above and between both heads
    4. Add the eyes
    5. Add the Eastern Roman crown
    6. Add the imperial orb/globus cruciger on the right hand
    7. Add the Roman labarum/banner with the Chi Rho on top and dark red flag with three gold colored circles on the left hand and you’re done!
    Color Name HEX RGB
    Dark Red #890014 137, 0, 20
    Gold #ffcb10 255, 203, 16

    Palaiologoi Banner

    Flag of Constantine Thought (Palaiologoi Banner Design)
    1. Draw a ball
    2. Fill it dark red
    3. Add a gold cross in the middle
    4. Draw 2 reversed B's on the top left and bottom left of the ball
    5. Draw 2 B's on the top right and the bottom right of the ball
    6. Add the eyes
    7. Add the Eastern Roman crown
    8. Add the imperial orb/globus cruciger on the right hand
    9. Add the Roman labarum/banner with the Chi Rho on top and dark red flag with three gold colored circles on the left hand and you’re done!
    Color Name HEX RGB
    Dark Red #890014 137, 0, 20
    Gold #ffcb10 255, 203, 16


    Fellow H


    • Australian Afunhumaninter who’s one of the realest bros.

    Bman Thought

    • Me but socialist and Muslim.

    Calculust's Thoughts

    • Ah, fellow ex-postmodernist turned Christian. We only disagree on economics, as what I recall correctly.

    Counterrevolutionary5708 thought

    • Pretty great for a Catholic, though we kinda disagree on technology and economics.


    • This is just Remodulism 2.0 and I don’t have strong opinions on it.


    • My more liberal counterpart.

    Patrick Thought

    • You are very H for bringing me back to God after being misguided by the darkness of materialistic nihilism of philosophical postmodernism. The only thing we disagree on is economy.


    • Abandon white nationalism and we’ll be the same.


    • Now this is what I call as perfection. Some of your stances are a bit moderate though.

    Timocratic Neocameralism

    • Basically me if I’m not a Christian.

    Typicalfan4 thought

    • Mexican Afunhumaninter, who’s a bit more conservative. Great, although I still dislike electoralism.

    Unfortunate Son Thought

    • Good to see another libertarian conservative here, although you are too liberal for my tastes (but that can be forgiven since you’re an American, a citizen of a country built on liberal values).

    Okay, I guess


    • Not too big on Spenglerian philosophy, but alright for a socialist, I guess.

    Avata Thought

    • It seems like you’re my ideological opposite, so I can’t say that much.

    Corwin Schott Theory

    • You basically just want to turn the US into China, as what I know from your ideology.


    • You remind me of my old, long gone Italian friend I used to be very close with known as Omega1065. That being said, I have no strong opinions on your ideology.


    • Basically an average stereotype of a modern tyrant. Nothing else to add.


    • Good to see another polcompballer from my own country. After you giving your opinion on my ideology, I can give you my opinion on your ideology too. One, liberal or modern democracy is basically just a chess simulator for corrupt politicians to use the populace, thinking that the latter has real power. Two, Georgism isn’t only about the LVT, it is a solid economic theory that inspired many free market theorists like Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, or Ludwig von Mises. And finally, social reforms are bound to happen inevitably, such as the abolition of slavery, but that doesn’t mean we should progress so much that we forget our own identity.


    • It seems like you’re my ideological opposite so I have no opinions.


    • Literally the state of nature. Cool person though.


    • How on Earth are you this contradictory? Claim to be a reactionary monarchist but believe in the same bourgeois ideology of nationalism that seeks not only to destroy natural hierarchies but also traditional empires in favor of an egalitarian concept of nation-state. Also the Catholic Church condemns ultranationalism and fascism too.


    • What if Remodulism became 10x more violent instead of returning to the Christendom?


    • 🤷‍♂️ (atleast we both dislike modern liberal democracy, albeit for completely different reasons)


    • Not a fan of Marxism but welcome to the Christendom, I guess?

    Syncretic Tridemism

    • My old friend from the same country 2x2 comes from. I think you should get rid of your Whig historiography apologism though.

    Xiaokang Neocameralism

    • The Top Q-Tiberius Synthesis? Weird but okay.



    Opinion on Stuffs


    Austrian School

    • A school of economics that is the true successor of Georgism. Laissez-faire markets, skepticism of fiat currency, etc., everything is there. You will always be superior to the dirty Keynesians.

    Byzantine Model

    • The only true Rome after the fall of the Western empire in 476.

    Classical Conservatism

    • The only true form of conservatism, where you conserve what’s truly sacred.


    • Love thy neighbors.


    • Rules and duties are what decide what’s moral and immoral, not results and happiness.


    • Neocameralism, Plutocracy, Corporatocracy, and Monarcho-Capitalism are the reimaginations of medieval governances that could have brought us the prosperity of civilization in the 21st century had the revolutionary demagogues never succeeded in tearing down the old regimes.


    • Free man, free land, free trade.


    • Europe out of a thousand Liechtensteins, Asia out of a thousand Singapores.


    • Any land belongs to the ones who wish to use it. Sorry not sorry.


    • “Hell is a democracy but heaven is a kingdom.” - St. John of Kronstadt


    • I really love reading stuffs from Unqualified Reservations. This reimagination of the reactionary thought in the 21st century by Mencius Moldbug inspires me to ditch bourgeois democracy aka zombie politics in favor of a truly libertarian, hierarchical, and civilizational society.

    Orthodox Christianity

    • Psalm 135 intensifies.


    • The nation-states and their consequences have been a disaster to the world.


    • Revolt against the sinful human nature, that is.

    Social Darwinism

    • The diligent shall be rewarded, while the social parasites shall wither away.



    • Not bad for a non-capitalist, as I admire the libertarian variant of this economic system. I just think you’re a bit too aligned with Catholicism and agrarianism though.

    Fourth Theory

    • Not sure about cheering for evil tyrants like Vladimir Putin and the state socialism thingy but Aleksandr Dugin is quite an interesting philosopher. Basically the opposite of Nick Land.


    • Definitely better than nationalism but it depends on who you ask. I think economic globalization and religious internationalism are great but modern globalism is just liberal universalism which I dislike.


    • I like the technocapital thingy but I find your nihilism disturbing.


    • Has good intentions, but most modern adherents fail to understand the totalitarian aspects of human nature and are too obsessive of anti-statism.



    • You’ll never be “le based trad Aryan Hyperborean supersoldier”. Grow up and go to your local church.


    • A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.


    • When men are equal, they are equally oppressed and humiliated.


    • This scourge of an ideology has origins from the Enlightenment, specially from Hegelian philosophy and Futurism. Yet most people claim that it’s just “authoritarian national conservatism” without reading actual thinkers of this ideology like D’Annunzio or Gentile.


    • You’re the embodiment of everything wrong in this world.


    • I don’t care about your materialistic demagoguery, that’s all. Atleast you got few things right, such as technological determinism.


    • This is just an ideology of cultural soullessness and relativism. Superior civilized cultures will always trump over inferior barbaric cultures.


    • You already know that I am against this egalitarian idea of both destroying organic hierarchy and dividing the Christendom in favor of worshipping an identitarian group, right? Also Galatians 3:28.


    • The only thing you conserve is your warmongering demagoguery for liberalism.


    • No.


    • What’s the point of rejecting civilization in favor of some abstract humanistic garbage?


    • Emperor Theodosius I did the right thing to get rid of heathens like you.


    • “Sufficiency Economy” my arse.

    Social Democracy

    • Funny that most modern so-called socialists are just you in denial.

    Personal Relations

    S Tier (95-100)

    • BERNHE0504 (100)
    • Patrick (100)
    • Wilkob/Bman (99)
    • 2x2Master (99)
    • Afunhumaninter (99)
    • The Devil of Great Luo (96)

    A Tier (79-94)

    • The Man Who Doesn’t Exist (94)
    • Local Germanic Tribesman (92)
    • Sh0c7 (91)
    • :trollsome: (90)
    • Misgnomer (89)
    • Hanperborea’s Strongest Soldier (88)
    • Unperson 2#14 (86)
    • Bacon Wooper (84)
    • Luna/Erissky (84)
    • Rebel Noodle (82)

    B Tier (62-78)

    • Marsvner/Morina (78)
    • Applethesky2021 (76)
    • Jefbol (74)
    • Polish Italian (74)
    • The Omni (73)
    • Akane Nakano-Stalin (73)
    • Glencoe13 (73)
    • Sr Deyvid (73)
    • Pantheon (73)
    • Nuoh (71)
    • Duar (71)
    • Bestybeetophile/A wee oddo (70)
    • Gabrial (69)
    • MrNoNonsense (68)
    • Calculustt (68)
    • Darko/Partizan (67)
    • Duypham2k2 (67)
    • Pirate Tails (66)
    • Nurisk (65)
    • IamSeamonkey (65)
    • DualPlay (65)
    • Meowx/Kira Kween (64)
    • SomeRandomDude (63)
    • TF2 Engineer Enthusiast (62)
    • General Shrekretary (62)

    C Tier (43-61)

    • BeryAb (61)
    • Justaworker (61)
    • Comrade Lucy (60)
    • Kaido Prefect (59)
    • NotLibra/Cynicalia (55)
    • Lukko/Avata (55)
    • Whiztale (55)
    • That Nasty Guy (53)
    • Aquaheart (52)
    • Nguy (51)
    • Ohioan Diaspora Nationalist (50)
    • Homosexual Dai Li (46)
    • Darth Tiberius (44)

    D Tier (20-42)

    • Polfax (38)
    • Jao (35)
    • ”Mosleyism-Langism” (34)
    • Caledonia’s Strongest Soldier (23)
    • Bonerforce (21)

    F Tier (7-19)

    • :JTalk: (17)
    • Peggy (15)
    • Whoa 🐟❤️🐟 (14)
    • That Argentine Woman (12)
    • Zerzan-Evola Synthesis (10)
    • Council/Christiane (9)
    • ”Wholesum Dear Brother” (7)

    Z Tier (0-6)

    • The Sino-Canadian Peggy (5)
    • Yugopart (4)
    • ”The Dude Horny for Discord PFPs” (4)
    • Pseudo-Psychopath (2)
    • Mao-Clairo Synthesis (0)
    • Literally Slaanesh (0)
    • Average Soyjak.party User (0)
    • Chip n’ Cream (0)
    • Her (0)
    • Bee Movie Scriptism (0)

    Test Showcase



    If you want to ask me to add you, please talk in my user talk page.


    Navigation Boxes

    Political Tests