For reasons of commodity to the reader and to myself I will be dividing my ideology in principles, which will be headed by sentences, if I can get my head over them.
1. I am not in the mental state to bear an unequivocal truth
I do not believe anything to be completely true, as Descartes said we can only say our own though is true, not our stimulus. For me this is the most important principle, everything I believe is just that, a belief, a though, a reaction to given stimulus, stimulus which can be redefined as experience, therefore I can't blame anyone for not thinking as I do.
I do blame those who claim to be a solution to all of our problems, and/or don't advert for negative consequences of their movements. This people believe in their own mind as the greatest processor ever, which will surely fix everything which generations and generations of people couldn't because of some braindead reason. This is condescension, one of human's utterly shits.
All of this said I don't and can't declare my ideas as a sure solution to one's problems, but at least it is what I believe to have been mine.
2. My fight is but a war, there is no loss, I don't need to win
If politics are about commitment (selling your ideals, in exchange of power, "One has to play the game to win it"), and if philosophy is about proselytizing, then my ideals are not politics or philosophy. My ideals don't want to succeed or reach everyone, my ideals won't shapeshift to follow what the people ask for, my ideals are but populist.
The only intent of my ideals is so that its followers are happy, or at least try to. All I want is know that I've tried to change the world, without changing my ideals just to convince more people. I hate Schopenhauer, the thing which makes me hate him the most is his defeatism, he believes people should not try to be happier because at the end the suffering will always be over the pleasure. This is why many people give up their philosophies, just because they are improbable, or because the majority won't follow them. But for me the truth is I don't care about the majority, I just am happy with knowing I've tried it, I've followed my cause.
3. Kafka is humanity's best chronicler
Many may define Kafkaesque as an extremely uncomfortable (even tragic) situation, usually having been driven to by different actions (of the one who suffers said situation or of others), leading to absurdity. To this common definition there's one thing to be added, the fact that whoever finds himself in a Kafkaesque situation can easily get out of it, but chooses not to.
This is key as most of human's problems could be easily be solved by simply choosing to change something, for example:
''I am unhappy, I haven't got enough time for myself with all this work. I wish I could live in the countryside, own a farm and have a much more peaceful life''
Our friend here did five years of college, just to get a degree he doesn't really like that much. He just got a great job which was really difficult for him to get, and which generates a lot of money, problem is his job doesn't fulfill him, in fact, for him his job is tedious, not even difficult, but just boring, he feels he's loosing he's time (which is pretty limited).As a conclusion to this section, don't ever feel tied to your past, if you are in our friend's situation sell everything you own, buy a farm and watch a YouTube tutorial on how to run it.
Then why doesn't he just leave his job? Well, in Economy there's a term for what's keeping him tied to his life, that is a Sunk Cost, he has lost five years of his time, and all effort and time that has led him to his current life is already lost. Now, a reasoning mind, would not continue there, why would anyone want to keep loosing time and effort in things which are meaningless for them? That's where I've got you, when you're the one in that situation you aren't really a reasonable person, but a feeling one, you feel fear of the truth of having lost all of that, and prefer to live in ignorance.So, our friend's situation is clearly a Kafkaesque one, he is in a rather tragic situation, to which he has been driven by many factors we can't get into right now, and more importantly in a situation he refuses to leave.
4. Stirner starts a new age of philosophy
Of love and of individuality. In The Ego and Its Own, Stirner states we are surruounded by "spooks", these are unreachable ideals turned into a broader concept for example:
- One may feel one has to be proud and brave, this is one's "spirit"
- One may be shy and humble, one is against his own "spirit"
- As one cannot reach this desired form one should give up, and stick to what he is, or search for other ways of changing, one rather may decide to project one's spirit in an ideal (be it the nation, God, atheism, communism, etc.)
- Now one is a slave to that ideal, one may feel haunted if not fighting for that ideal, the spirit has turned into a ghost, a spook.
A spook is totally opposed by love, the only ideal created by and for individuals, it makes us care for each other, rather than the spook itself. The spooks not only influx hate against those who oppose our spooks, or even others who are opposed by our spooks, but also want to put themselves over love.
[I will provide futher explanations for this section]
5. Democracy has failed, the state, the symbol of this tirant must fall
I am not directly opposed to someone governing me, though I would wish that someone to govern FOR me. Democracy, and the modern state, are based on illustrated ideas, rooted on racism, ableism, imperialism, and other forms of hate, this were acceptable under a strictly materialist POV back in the day (consensus was dumb, as so were people, specially non-germanic people), still having as its main objective a government by (arguably) and for (arguably) the people of the nation.
This modern state differs from medieval and previous forms of the state in its inherent democracy, seen in protestantism previoulsy, a ''democratic religion'', based on its believers, in which one is not to live by a set of rules, but by total dedication to the deity. The same goes on in the illustrated state, instead of just living by rules, (some) people tend to be the state, clerks of the state, thinking about what is best for the state (or the nation), or forcing the law on others because ''the state says its ilegal'', all of this preceding their own self.
Democracy is now a means and not an end, democracy is needed for getting to the end, unanimity, the state should not be chosen by the majority, but FORMED by ALL. How can a society, formed by millions achieve this? By free asociation, a human right which has been taken from us, we shall follow the rules of the state over us, rather than living together, by rules we have truly agreed with, not just reluctantly accepted. We then will live in communes we have formed.
But the reader may be asking themself, How will this not lead to everyone just following their own rules? Because of the benefits living in society has, people will reach a consensus, not everyone will reach it, therefore many different communes will be formed, which will have common rules, not with a political alignment, but made to respect free association. This way there will be different governments, formed by people wich can get in or out of them, respecting or not their rules depending on wether they are part of it.
This termination of the state is the end, but democracy may be used to reach this human right, along with many others.
6. Free Land, Free People
Even though anarchism, unanimity, is the only valid way of living (aside from the union of egoists, which will be talked about later) it has some problems when exposed to society at first, and so the communes (which have different legislatures) havo to create a common set of laws to be able to exist. These being:
- The land is of no one (not of everyone), for if land could be claimed then intercommunal fighting would be usual and the whole systme would collapse into a democracy or a tyranic state. The land is therefore free for everyone to exploit, with whatever machines or work is to be used not being free.
- People are free to join or leave communes, always respecting the new commune's laws, be them racist, ableist, etc.
- No commune or communard shall commit a crime against another commune, if in a communard's comune it is legal to steal (there is no property), but he steals from a communard member of a commune in which private property does exist, then the stealing communard will be judged by the commune's laws which he has infringed.
- Intercommunal wars are terminatelly prohibited, for that would turn into avaritionism and, ultimately, a state.