Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 6,319 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!

    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki


    Philosophicism is a highly anarchistic ideology based on the thoughts of PhilosophicHedgehog. It's based on a strongly pessimistic/realist view about how the world is heading, and that civilization collapse is nearer now than ever. It's focused on the desire for order and its implications, the schizophrenic nature of civilized life, and happiness. Icons: (////)

    Political Journey


    Cringe Elon Musk fanboy phase.

    • I-Hate-Politics-ism
    • Transhumanism


    The whole COVID situation made me become authoritarian, but I still wanted a welfare state. I went into the Alt-Lite rabbit hole for a while.

    • Anti-SJW
    • Social Authoritarianism


    Got out of the rabbit hole after I became friends with some queer folks online, but I remained authoritarian.

    • Progressivism
    • Social Authoritarianism

    Late 2021/Early 2022

    I became more progressive to the point where I hated traditions and much of my own culture. Got a bit more leftist; I was becoming skeptical of capitalism while learning more about socialism and communism.

    • Ultraprogressivism
    • Nordic Model

    Early-Mid 2022

    After a relatively long transitory phase, I became a Marxist. I was still rather authoritarian, as my only knowledge of socialism came from Marxist-Leninists and the like. I was particularly interested in Luxemburgism.

    • Ultraprogressivism
    • Marxism
    • Luxemburgism

    Mid 2022

    I started to become more libertarian as I got to see the faults of MLs and authoritarian Marxists. I started to care more about liberty; I learned more about libertarian socialism and I got to talk with some libertarian Marxists. I had even written my own ideology page here on PCBA, but sadly when I changed many of my political views I deleted the page. It was a mistake, I know. Anyway, it was a strange synthesis of libertarian Marxism and Gaddafism. I had even read a big portion of The Green Book by Muammar Gaddafi. I got a bit less progressive, mainly in terms of culture, not social issues. I advocated for a spontaneous revolution.

    • Progressivism
    • Impossibilism
    • Libertarian Marxism
    • Gaddafism

    Late 2022

    I became interested in the Solarpunk movement. I started to care more about nature preservation and liberation. I started to define myself as a progressive conservative, as in I wanted to preserve most traditions while striving for social progress. I also discovered Democratic Confederalism as I learned more about Rojava.

    • Progressive Conservatism
    • Impossibilism
    • Solarpunkism
    • Democratic Confederalism

    Early 2023

    This is the last stage before my current ideology. I left planned economies for mutualism - which I know isn't a strictly market-focused ideology, but it still implies the possibility for them to exist, which I liked because I wanted to maximize individual choice regarding political and economic systems. I started to consider myself to be an anarchist (the classical one) after flirting with it for a while.

    • Mutualism
    • Social Anarchism
    • Solarpunkism
    • Progressive Conservatism
    • Post-Colonial Anarchism


    Here we are. I want to briefly explain how I got here and how I became a post-leftist. One of the most important texts was "Post-Colonial Anarchism" by Roger White - there are two, I'm talking about the short one. It was the first time I heard decent critiques of the Left and I agreed with them. Then I read texts about Post-Civ, which made me understand the problems of civilization. Then I read "Insurgency", by various authors. That was the text that made me "become" a post-leftist. I started to define myself as a post-left anarchist. Then I read "Desert" and "Blessed Is The Flame". The latter was by far the most influential text I've ever read, it completely changed my worldview. Lastly, I read a lot of the stuff written by Hakim Bey and that also made me change my perspective on the world.

    • Anarcho-Nihilism
    • Anti-Politics / Anti-Organizationalism
    • Ontological Anarchy
    • Post-Left Anarchism
    • Eco-Pessimism

    Ideological Summary

    WIP, I will add more sections and finish the already existing ones.


    • Anarcho-Nihilism
    • Anti-Civilization
    • Anti-Politics / Anti-Organizationalism
    • Free Association
    • Individualist Anarchism
    • Ontological Anarchy
    • Police Abolitionism
    • Post-Anarchism
    • Post-Civilization
    • Post-Left Anarchism
    • Prison Abolitionism


    • Anti-Consumerism
    • Anti-Economy
    • Anti-Work
    • Gift Economy


    • Cultural Deconstructionism
    • Dependency Theory
    • Free Love
    • Indigenous Anarchism
    • Linguistic Preservation (as an anti-colonial praxis)
    • Post-Colonial Anarchism
    • Post-Feminism
    • Queer Nihilism


    • Affinity Groups
    • Direct Action
    • Illegalism
    • Insurrection
    • Mutual Aid
    • Sabotage/Ecotage
    • Self-Sufficiency
    • Squatting
    • Temporary Autonomous Zones


    • Anti-Humanism
    • Constructivism
    • Fallibilism
    • Nihilism
      • Cosmic Nihilism
      • Epistemological Nihilism
      • Existential Nihilism
      • Moral Nihilism
      • Optimistic Nihilism
      • Political Nihilism
    • Post-Structuralism
    • Relativism
    • Skepticism
    • Strong Agnosticism


    • Biopunk
    • Cyberpunk
    • Surrealism


    • Fumiko Kaneko (1903-1926)
    • Hakim Bey (1945-2022)
    • Flower Bomb (???-)
    • Serafinski (???)
    • Anonymous [author of Desert] (???)
    • Guará (???)
    • Roger White (???)

    Political Beliefs


    The Theater

    The idea of the Theater will be a very recurring theme on this page, so it is of vital importance that this concept be explained as early as possible to avoid confusion. Although I love Hakim Bey's writings, it was somewhat difficult to fully understand the concept of ontological anarchy, central to his political and philosophical thought; once understood, I found reading many of his texts (short and long) that I had already read much easier. I don't want this to happen. So what is it? The Theater is the metaphorical manifestation of the simulated reality we live in. I'll expand on this idea in Schizophrenic Ontology. Some who are not part of the Theater are post-leftists and to an extent post-anarchists.

    The Role of the State

    Ontologically, the State is not a real entity. The State is considered by anarchists to be a monopoly on violence; acts of violence mandated by the State are justified by different reasons and different reasonings from different people apart from anarchists, while acts of violence performed or mandated by people unaffiliated to the State are redeemed as unacceptable. In the statist view, the State has to remain an influential entity in people's lives, so it is vital that its competition gets eliminated. The State is no better than a random gang, although it is more cunning. This becomes obvious if we understand how it managed to make people believe its abstract rules, called Law. In my country (Italy) the Mafia asks people living in their territories for a specific amount of money every month or so; this is called "pizzo". If you don't pay it, be ready for the consequences, some of which are getting your shop destroyed if you own one or straight-up getting killed together with your relatives. Thankfully the Mafia is not present in my region, mainly because my parents (who are the owners and only workers of a shop) already find it hard to pay taxes. In fact, I'd argue I live in a territory governed by a Mafia organization, that is the State. I have to periodically give money to the State otherwise I'll get my property stolen (which I find unfair because of the clear difference in power between me and the State), get thrown in jail, or worse. The Mafia doesn't care to control some random small shop, so they just destroy that property instead of stealing it; they also don't have jails so they skip the second step and go straight to the killing.

    The Liberal Act

    History can be divided into different Acts. We currently live in the Liberal Act, in the sense that the ideas of the Enlightenment are hegemonic around the world. The Left, the Right, and even the Far-Left; they are all based on liberalism and the Enlightenment in general. I have to admit though, that far-right movements such as Fascism are far too distant from liberal ideas to be considered participants of the Liberal Act, and it would be more accurate to put them among the Subversives. Some of the participants in this act fully embrace delusions; Neo-Feudalists Anarcho-Capitalists are the epitome of this. Their whole political philosophy is based around a non-existent entity, private property. The Right Libertarian claim of rights being inherent and natural is already beyond stupid and nonsensical, but ancaps really take this to the next level. For the ancap, everything is private property, even the self. They might be against the State, but not against its competition. Private law, education, and healthcare. They just want the State's role to be replaced by corporations.

    The Subversives

    Feudalism, Mercantilism, Cameralism, and other pre-enlightenment, counter-enlightenment, and reactionary ideologies, while not part of the Liberal Act, are part of the Theater, as their objective is to return to a pre-Liberal Act. Then there are those who seek to surpass it, by establishing another one; those are the fascists. Fascism is such a vague ideology that it is pretty much impossible to find a definition that encompasses all the different variants. Following there is a part of Umberto Eco's essay Ur-Fascism:

    • So we come to my second point. There was only one Nazism. We cannot label Franco’s hyper-Catholic Falangism as Nazism, since Nazism is fundamentally pagan, polytheistic, and anti-Christian. But the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change. The notion of fascism is not unlike Wittgenstein’s notion of a game. A game can be either competitive or not, it can require some special skill or none, it can or cannot involve money. Games are different activities that display only some “family resemblance,” as Wittgenstein put it. Consider the following sequence: ABC - BCD - CDE - DEF. Suppose there is a series of political groups in which group one is characterized by the features ABC, group two by the features BCD, and so on. Group two is similar to group one since they have two features in common; for the same reasons three is similar to two and four is similar to three. Notice that three is also similar to one (they have in common the feature C). The most curious case is presented by four, obviously similar to three and two, but with no feature in common with one. However, owing to the uninterrupted series of decreasing similarities between one and four, there remains, by a sort of illusory transitivity, a family resemblance between four and one. Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.

    The fundamental problem with this line of reasoning is that once we reach DEF, which doesn't have any common characteristic with ABC, we get something new. It has changed so much that it can't be said to be the same thing as the first. However, this doesn't mean that Classical Fascism is a completely different thing from Evolaism; my opinion is that both are fascistic ideologies, and so thought Eco. He later explains his concept of Ur-Fascism.

    • But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

    Eco then goes on to write a list of 14 points, all of which together form the common characteristics of fascist ideologies. So then the sequence he talked about would be more accurately written as follows: ZABC - ZBCD - ZCDE - ZDEF, where Z represents what he calls Ur-Fascism.

    Eco was part of the Liberal Act; this becomes clear when we actually read the 14 points. He says that fascists reject modernism, so this means they're automatically bad, and calls them irrational, as an insult more than a real critic. I do not seek to do that.

    Fascists are not against modernism, just the liberal type. They base their ideology on the Nation. "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State" is probably the best way to put it. The Z in the sequence represents the Nation as the central aspect of their politics. But Fascism is not a normal type of nationalism. It's totalitarian to represent the unity of the people of the Nation under a single banner. This means Fascism is strongly collectivist, as demonstrated by its symbol (or at least the Classical Fascism one), the bundle of sticks, representing how the people of a Nation are weak divided but strong together. The rejection of the modern economic system, capitalism, and its main competitor, socialism, for corporatism. It's clear how corporatism and Fascism are compatible. Fascism puts apart class differences for the higher cause of the Nation, while corporatism does it to achieve efficiency and the well-being of the people; but isn't that what Fascism wants? Corporatism is also the best way for the State to control the economy while maintaining strong hierarchies. Workers subjugated to their specific corporation [1], corporations subjugated by the State. Ideally, these different groups (workers, employers, and the State) would collaborate to achieve maximum efficiency and well-being for all, but in practice, the State will always form a hierarchy with other parties below, to avoid being surpassed by competition. Because after all, for fascists second to the Nation are hierarchies, redeemed essential for its stability and thriving. This is why I consider Fascism to be a worship of the Theater, although not the contemporary one.

    Lastly, there is Neoreactionaryism, which is a syncretic position more than anything. WIP

    The Outsiders


    Order and Chaos

    Order can be defined as things going the way someone wants; in other words, order means control. However, we have to acknowledge that this is neither desirable nor possible without the use of force. Order is held by persuading or forcing people into doing what someone else wants. There is no order without consensus and coordination. However, consensus and coordination are things that become harder to maintain as the number of people involved rises. Throughout history, there have been many ways to achieve order: morality, police, peer pressure, collectivism, and so on. Morality is meaningless, laws are meaningless; most of these things are meaningless until they become enforced. Then, from being meaningless and harmless, they become dangerous. Human history can be reinterpreted as the endless expansion of order: the creation of new weapons was/is a way to control conflicts and make it easier to win and impose the winner's desires on the loser; agriculture was/is a way to control food growth; laws were/are ways to control people's behavior... Classical anarchists, with slogans such as "Anarchy is Order" and symbols such as the circled A, fail to understand this. Their disdain for disorder or chaos is often irrational, unjustified, or it is tainted by morality and collectivism. On the other hand, chaos, or disorder, - you can call it however you want - is natural. It may seem contradictory, but disorder is the natural order of things. Nature's order, even if it can seem chaotic, is the only type of order that can exist without force. Trying to achieve order goes against nature: it will never be possible without oppression and force. Thus, I seek to revolt against these systems of oppression, against calls for order.

    Schizophrenic Ontology

    We're living inside a simulation. Not a simulation intended in the Matrix sense, but an impression of reality. We live in a big delusion: civilization is a delusion, money is a delusion, law is a delusion, authority is a delusion; our whole life is a delusion. We in life are not permitted to be, we have to partake in the act of reality. The Leviathan is not real, yet our whole existence is constructed by it. You're not a unique individual, you're a student, doctor, scientist, or farmer. Your whole existence is a theater performance. What is the State? A government with a stable territory; an organized political community. But what is politics? Politics is the management of oppression. It's all abstract. By themselves, actions mandated by the State are just random acts of violence. Hence I do not see the State as a real entity but as a monopoly of violence with a nonexistent conductor. And these acts of State violence are justified by laws. Laws are not real; they're a list of arbitrarily decided actions that are just prohibited as if you had ever given consent to them when you were born. The police is an army of puppets of the nothing that is Law. Then there are rights, which are things that the State says you're allowed to do. But why should I be given permission by something which doesn't even exist to do or have something? Gay rights are bullshit because you shouldn't need a different type of rights just because you like a different category of people than what society expects you to like; moreover, they are bullshit because gay people shouldn't have to be given permission by the State to live however they want. The same goes for trans rights. In a way, civilized life is schizophrenic, in the sense that we cannot tell what is real and what is not. Our life is just a really long psychosis - kind of. Life is short; too short. Take what it's yours, live however you want, and stop being an actor. Escape the simulation that is masqueraded as reality. Be happy.

    Pure Negation

    We are being led to our slaughter. Blessed is the Flame begins with this powerful yet short sentence. It can lead to different interpretations: it might be talking about death caused by the Law's servants, aka the police, whenever someone decides that achieving personal desires is more important than achieving those of the oppressors; however, it also might be talking about a metaphorical death, that of desire caused by surrendering oneself to the civilized order. I personally think it's a bit of both. Civilization is based on the uniformity of desires; in any form, civilization and mass society will always be collectivist in some way, whether they are feudalistic, capitalistic, or socialistic. A "hyper-individualistic" capitalist society will inevitably be collectivist, because diversity of desire means flouting, and civilization and mass society can't exist without order. However, now I want to talk about the son of civilization and mass society: politics. Politics is the art of order; when I talk about how order means oppression my answer is not an attack against the state, but against politics. Politics involves managing people, whether it's actual politics, as in upholding the law and passing acts, visionary politics, as in imagining different political systems or "better" societies, or organizational politics, as in organizing outside the current political system. Engaging in actual politics means embracing the delusion that is civilized life, and engaging in visionary politics, although it can be good sometimes, more often than not means imagining an ideal society that cannot be achieved without oppression. So now only organizational politics remains. Organizational politics is the son of visionary politics; the former exists solely because of the latter. Engaging in organizational politics means suppressing jouissance and surrendering to a "higher cause", to a never coming future. In short: there are no demands to be made, no utopic visions to be upheld, no political programs to be followed — the path of resistance is one of pure negation.

    Jouissance: Love and Happiness in a Simulated World

    Civilization offers us a flawed concept of happiness, perpetual and feeble, that comes and goes, that can be bought. Happiness has been commodified. Amusement parks are a good example of this commodification. With their overpriced tickets and products, they offer a happy break from our boring and melancholic life, as long as you can pay. On TV and online you see rich and famous people showing their largest smiles and spending their time drowned in entertainment, whether for us only or also for themselves, but never for themselves only. They show off their big and expensive cars and extravagant clothing just because they can. They have the social status necessary to do so while not being mocked. What happens when the average person sees people with all this stuff "happy"? They think the way to happiness in their miserable and depressing life is to buy more objects, thus drowning in consumerism and becoming a slave of money.

    Civilized life is characterized by the contrast between this weak "happiness" and melancholic angst. The sensation that the world does not, will not, and cannot go the way we want it to be. This feeling is born from the fact that civilization seeks to put order to a naturally chaotic world; civilization is the projection of our desired order onto the natural world. Anxiety comes from the thought that things may not go the way we want them to go. To beat anxiety, we must acknowledge that chaos is the natural state of the universe. Most things are not under our control. Get over it, and realize that civilization offers us a simulated control of the external world.

    Now, with that in mind, we can ponder on what jouissance is. Jouissance literally means enjoyment. It means achieving our desires, without sacrificing them for "the common good", which from a civilized viewpoint is the maintenance of the "simulated order of order". A life driven by jouissance is thus a fundamentally egoist one. It is against altruism as the unconditional moral ideal of putting aside one's desires and self-interests to help others; do what you will, help someone else, but make it your own decision. More often than not, jouissance manifests itself through uncivilized desires: rampaging through a deserted city taken over by vegetation, singing, kissing, and fucking, without any clearly defined objective or reason; that is jouissance. Love in its rawest form is prohibited by society and civilization. And thus, the only answer to this is to revolt against them.

    Here comes the concept of ontological anarchy: authority is not real, it's not a thing. Authority is just a gang of people lost in their delusions, who by themselves are not any different from you and me, that engage in deliberate violence to maintain the status quo, a fake sense of order. As I already explained in Schizophrenic Ontology, you are not constrained, you just feel like you're constrained. We don't have much time on this Earth; in fact, most of us will live to 70, and 70 years are just 3640 weeks, which isn't a lot. So why should I give up my short existence to delusions and other people's desires? Why should I remain a slave of authority, money, the economy, work, law, morality, civilization, and society? Why shouldn't I decide by myself what I want to do with my life? Why can't I be happy? Why can't I love whoever I want? Be it a man, a woman, nature itself. My love is not only directed towards a specific human category, such as male or female. However, my love is not only directed toward humans but also toward other forms of life, such as animals and plants and nature in general. My love is not constrained, it's absolute. Civilization is actively hindering you from achieving true happiness, and from expressing true love. In a world where love and happiness are heavily regulated, the only answer is to rebel against the whole world. You and me alone against the world. In other words, pure negation.

    Total Collapse



    Rebelling Against Corporate Transhumanism and Work

    I fucking hate corporations. I hate everything about them. We currently live in a boring dystopia: born to work and consume, to be as beneficial as possible to the industrial capitalist machine; we have to slave away to money and to the law to basically do anything in this shitty world. Corporations have as much impact on our lives as the government. However, the topic of this paragraph is not my fervent hatred toward the awful world we live in, but what happens when technological advancement reaches transhumanism in a world focused on work. We can already see how many corporations like Neuralink are facilitating (and accelerating) the entrance into the transhumanist period, which will be succeeded by the singularity - if modern civilization doesn't collapse before. What does this mean for us? Do you really think we will get robot arms, life will get better for everyone, and we won't have to work anymore? What the immortalist/anti-death movement doesn't realize is that it will result in working forever for a soulless corporation. No pension, no sick leaves. "Voluntary" slavery. Soon there will be four options: surrendering to this metaphorical death, rebelling against transhumanism, rebelling against work, or rebelling against both. What I would choose is to rebel against work; rebelling against transhumanism alone would mean wasting my life working like we do today, or worse, it would lead to the first option when body enhancements will become practically mandatory. Rebelling against both can also be a good solution, but I feel like that's a personal choice; I, for instance, would consider different technologies case by case, instead of uncritically supporting every technological "advancement". Remember: technology is not neutral, it reflects the goal of its creator - intentionally or not.

    On Social Constructs and Identity

    What is a woman? That's a question dumbasses like Matt Walsh are obsessed with, without knowing the depth of what they're asking or what answer they expect. If we're talking about sex, it's an individual with a uterus, right? Well, no, because about one in 5000 women are born without a uterus. Ok then, let's talk about chromosomes. A woman is an individual with XX chromosomes, right? Well, again, no, males can also have XX chromosomes - see de la Chapelle syndrome. Well, then what is it? I have just disproved Matt Walsh and a lot of dumb bigots' favorite argument after just two minutes of research. So, now, what is a woman? A woman is nothing more than a social construct. It isn't valid for everyone. Even if the majority of people fall into categories such as male and female, they are still flawed, and thus they shouldn't matter outside of a scientific scope. However, something being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it means it's not fixed. About 100 years ago pink was a boy's color and blue a girl's color. Language and grammar are also social constructs; they change continuously, so why not make them gender-neutral? English is, to my restricted knowledge, already gender-neutral. However, romance languages (and many others) are generally gender-based, and the majority lack a neutral form. The average speaker might want to keep using today's grammar, but I, remembering it is a social construct and in part to tease bigots, I will say whatever I want however I want. After all, language is masqueraded as a simple system of communication, but most of the time it's also used as a system of oppression. Formal and informal language; fixed meaning and grammar... Language is something that should be talked about more outside of academic circles - I find it ironic how texts about language and its role in society are written in such a complex style they become unintelligible to the average reader, especially to people who don't speak English as a first language like me. I'm against external-imposed identity roles, and queer nihilism and post-feminism help me put into action my thoughts.

    Cultural Deconstructionism

    Culture, what is culture? An illusion I'd say, as almost every other thing in this world it seems like. A set of habits ingrained in our life experience by an external or seldom internal subject. Not to say that culture is inherently bad - I don't even believe there's good or bad. My problems with it are cultural norms and social issues. I'll talk about customs later. Cultural norms are immanent puppeteers, and we are the puppets. Here I say immanent because while other puppeteers I talked about in the last paragraph are yes illusions but represented by real entities, cultural norms are not represented by anything. Thus I distinguish the nominal part of culture from the physical one, which can in turn be divided into social issues and customs or traditions. I already explained my point of view on social issues in On Social Constructs and Identity, so I'll now talk about customs. In my opinion, customs are not to be completely rejected to achieve liberation. Here comes the concept of cultural deconstructionism; deconstructing culture as a practice means taking culture as a whole and dividing it into smaller pieces until only the singular habits remain. Now we can take only the ones we like, making them ours. They have become personal habits. We can do this with every culture, taking different parts as we like. In this abstract playground, we can also create our own habits. Basically, I take the parts I like about different cultures and then I throw away (or as someone who really doesn't like waste, leave for someone else) the rest. In a way, I find this similar to a quasi-futurism. The futurist would say "Destroy current society and then create new values and habits from its ashes!" and then stop. Instead, the deconstructionist would continue, saying "Destroy current society and then create new values and habits from its ashes, but take some of the ashes with you!" The ashes aren't of anyone, you can take them. Obviously, when I talk about the deconstructionist I talk about myself, as this is my own idea which I think (and hope) is original and fresh.

    Worship and Morality

    Religion is characterized by a list of virtues and vices, a list of things that are arbitrarily redeemed as "good" or "bad", more often than not by a deity. However, religions must be born by someone, thus religious morality is just what the creator/creators of the religion itself redeemed as desirable or undesirable. This categorization comes from the desire for order and control; it was a way to control other people without having to give an explanation because asking for one meant going against the deity/deities' will. That was, at least in Europe, until the 14th century, when humanists started to put less faith in the medieval order rediscovering the classical period, thus shifting from theocentrism to anthropocentrism - two incredibly stupid world views. However, we had to wait a couple of centuries before a new type of morality emerged, utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was different from religious morality because it was based on humanity, not a random deity. The more happiness and well-being an action causes for the individuals affected, the better, and vice versa. However, that involves treating humanity as the center of morality, which results in human worship, unconsciously or not. In the end, morality is just a tool for oppression, as it involves condemning people for committing actions arbitrarily redeemed good or bad by someone else; this means surrendering one's desires for those of others, being a slave of a nonexistent master.

    User Test

    • Civics
      • Anti-Politics/Anti-Organization (+10)
      • Anarchism (+8)
      • Minarchism (+6)
      • Libertarianism (+5)
      • Liberalism (+3)
      • Moderatism (0)
      • Statism (-3)
      • Authoritarianism (-6)
      • Totalitarianism (-10)
      • Orwellianism (-25)
    • Type of Rule
      • Anarchist Anti-Democracy (+10)
      • Direct Democracy (+5)
      • Representative Democracy (0)
      • Authoritarian Democracy (-5)
      • Totalitarian Democracy (-10)
      • Dictatorship (-25)
      • Constitutionalism (0)
      • Noocracy (-3)
      • Libertarian Anti-Democracy (-3)
      • Scientocracy (-4)
      • Technocracy (-5)
      • Aristocracy (-10)
      • Timocracy (-10)
      • Plutocracy (-10)
      • Stratocracy (-10)
      • Bankocracy (-10)
      • Combatocracy (-10)
      • Mediacracy (-10)
      • Theocracy (-25)
      • Cyberocracy (-25)
      • Corporatocracy (-25)
    • Economics
      • Anti-Economy (+10)
      • Communism/Gift Economy (+4)
      • Socialism (+2)
      • Mixed Economy (0)
      • Third Positionism (-8)
      • Moderatism (-5)
      • State Capitalism (-10)
      • Capitalism (-10)
      • Laissez-Faire (-25)
    • Diplomacy
      • Autarchism (+9)
      • World Federalism (-7)
      • Cosmopolitanism (+8)
      • Globalism (+2)
      • Internationalism (+5)
      • Alter-Globalism (+10)
      • Moderatism (+3)
      • Patriotism (0)
      • Anti-Colonial Nationalism (+6)
      • Nationalism (+3)
      • Separatism (+5)
      • Jingoism (-8)
      • Chauvinism/Ultranationalism (-10)
      • Irredentism (-10)
      • Imperialism (-25)
    • Culture
      • Noveltism (+3)
      • Cultural Deconstructionism (+10)
      • Revolutionary Progressivism (+7)
      • Progressivism (+5)
      • Moderate Progressivism (+2)
      • Progressive Conservatism (+5)
      • Moderatism (-2)
      • Moderate Conservatism (-2)
      • Conservatism (-5)
      • Traditionalism (-10)
      • Reactionarism (-25)
    • Social
      • Hive-Mind (-25)
      • Collectivism (-10)
      • Communitarianism (0)
      • Moderatism (0)
      • Moderate Individualism (+5)
      • Individualism (+8)
      • Egoism (+10)
    • Technology
      • Primalism (-10)
      • Primitivism (-8)
      • Neo-Luddism (-2)
      • Technological Decelerationism (0)
      • Moderatism (+5)
      • Mixed (+10)
      • Technological Accelerationism (0)
      • Transhumanism (+3)
      • Post-Humanism (-25)
    • Environment
      • Human Extinctionism (-8)
      • Anti-Civilizationism (+10)
      • Eco-Fascism (-8)
      • Radical Environmentalism (+10)
      • Agrarianism (+6)
      • Environmentalism (+3)
      • Moderatism (-2)
      • Mixed (-5)
      • Industrialism (-10)
      • Anti-Environmentalism (-25)
    • Neurology
      • Utopianism (-10)
      • Quixotism (+5)
      • Idealism (+8)
      • Moderatism (+10)
      • Realism (+8)
      • Pragmatism (+5)
      • Rationalism (-5)
      • Dystopianism (-25)
    • Geopolitics
      • West (-10)
      • Western Adjacent (-5)
      • Other/Non-Aligned (+10)
      • Eastern Adjacent (-10)
      • East (-25)

    Post your results here: (max: 100 / min: -250)


    I'll refer to eco-anarchism and green anarchism as two different ideologies as I usually see left-anarchists (the social ecology types) defining themselves as the former and post-leftists (not all of them) defining themselves as the latter.


    • Anarcho-Nihilism - Blessed is the Flame has completely changed my view of politics and the world in general; you express my ideals perfectly.
    • Deep Ecology - I like your ecocentrism and many other details about you.
    • Green Anarchism - Human and nature liberation come hand in hand.
    • Post-Civilizationism - Civilization is unsustainable and undesirable, but so is going back to a pre-civilized state.
    • Post-Leftism - You get me. Anarchists need to leave the Left and its collectivist ideals.
    • Ontological Anarchism - CHAOS NEVER DIED! You helped me understand the massive delusion we live in and how anarchy is something that already exists and a way of living.
    • Queer Nihilism -
    • Postfeminism -
    • Eco-Pessimism -


    • Queer Anarchism - Be gay, do crime. TQILA is unbelievably based. I hate your variants obsessed with identity politics though, which sadly make up the majority of your followers.
    • Post-Anarchism - I like how for you anarchy is something that is a way of living already feasible, but I have to read more about you.
    • Absurdism - My life philosophy is strangely similar to you, even though you didn't influence me. We agree on the fact that the world is irrational and chaotic and that we should embrace this, but you still believe that we can create meaning in this. By believing that death destroys all meaning you become terrified of death. I as a nihilist don't believe we can create meaning at all; I find this aspect to be liberating.
    • Anarcho-Egoism - I still have to read more about you, but although I find you interesting, I don't identify as an egoist/ego-nihilist because to my eyes it makes the ego an idol and thus involves a "unique" morality, where everything that fulfills the ego is good and everything that impedes desire is bad. I completely agree with your idea of spooks, but I've seen far too many egoists claim that, if it pleases the ego, the individual can use certain spooks as a tool. Lastly, the ego/self is an illusion, but I love your concept of the creative nothing.


    • Agrarian Anarchism - You believe that most of the modern problems will go away with society returning to a mostly agrarian state, and maybe you're right. However, you fail to see that the problem is not modern society, but civilization itself. Also, monoculture is harmful to Nature.
    • Anarcha-Feminism - Rights are a spook made up by the state; you should be able to do whatever you want without someone having to give you permission. I prefer post-feminism over you. I still support you though.
    • Taoist Anarchism - Although you've influenced me, your flirting with pacifism is something I cannot justify when that's what I'm expected to practice while my home is being exploited and devastated and my life wasted and used to benefit the lives of my oppressors.


    • Agorism - Counter-economics might seem like a good idea at first, but in reality, it's just a process of replacement between two economic systems, which are oppressive for the individual. However, black markets can be a good alternative to the oppressive system we have now.
    • Anarcho-Primitivism - Yes, civilization is bad, but going back is not the answer, and technology is not inherently oppressive.
    • Eco-Anarchism - Far too many of your followers are influenced by Bookchin; moreover, you claim to be against pollution but you want to treat only one of the three root causes, capitalism; however, civilization and industrialism are also problems you need to address.


    • Socialism - Worker ownership? What about no ownership? And what's up with this cult of workers? Also, you claim to be against identity politics and liberalism but your ideology is based on them.
    • Anti-Fascism - The original movement was good, but nowadays the movement has been hijacked by radlibs. It has become a joke which targets everyone more conservative than them instead of actual fascists. Moreover, it's just mob mentality and groupthink. Your followers are more often than not the type of person who would support an equally authoritarian dictator just because he claims to be anti-fascist.


    • Libertarian Municipalism - Lifestylist and proud!
    • Marxism-Leninism - Counter revolutionary and proud!
    • Fascism - Anti-Fascist and proud! We're basically polar opposites. My city was bombed because of you, so fuck you in particular.
    • Neo-Marxism - Dogmatism, meta-narratives, identity politics... pretty bad overall.
    • Petersonism - Doesn't understand postmodernism or communism, should stick to his area of expertise (psychology).
    • Post-Humanism - You're not a God and never will be. Embracing alienation is certainly not desirable.
    • Landian Accelerationism - Posthumanist accelerationist reactionary capitalist dystopia.


  • Floofel's Thought (//) - I honestly can't find anything in your page I disagree with, apart from your desire to destroy all remnants of the past: I prefer to "deconstruct" traditions and take only the parts I like. However, you're a fellow active nihilist, and you're section on self-destruction is really interesting, so I have to give you that.
  • HelloThere314 (//) - I'm certainly not as well-versed in philosophy as you are, thus I can only admire how well-developed your thought is; I agree with many of the things you say, but my criticisms of egoism also apply to you. It's not really a big deal though, so in the end, I'll put you in the S tier.
  • Ego-Progressivism (//) - I agree with pretty much everything on your page, even though you're an existentialist.
  • Neo Post-Left Autism (//) - You still hold to some morality, but this is certainly an improvement from your last page, enough for me to rank you in the S tier.
  • A

    • LordCompost86 (//) - I'll mainly comment on your political views as I'm not knowledgeable enough about philosophy - it has become an interest of mine only in recent times. It's nice how you reject identity politics in all its forms and groups; I don't have anything against Stirnerites/egoists, though my criticism of ego morality counts for all of you. My main criticism is that your "political experience" is characterized by passive support for capitalism, even if you may be against it from a philosophical standpoint. Still, I have to acknowledge that your thought is mainly philosophical rather than political, so I have to consider the former more than the latter for my ranking.
    • Revolutionary Eclecticism (//) - I generally don't like communists and communism, even if it comes from a post-leftist point of view, but autonomism and anarcho-communization are its most tolerable forms as they pretty much reject formal organization. I'd say you fall into dogmatism when you consider state and market socialists to be "not true socialists" if that even means something. Definitions are not objective but relative. Also, even if something might seem objective or factual, it's not. Is Mount Everest really the highest mountain on Earth? Mount Everest's peak is the highest altitude above mean sea level at 8,848 meters. Mount Chimborazo's peak is the furthest point on Earth from Earth's center. The summit is over 2,072 meters farther from Earth's center than Mount Everest's summit. Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain from base to peak at more than 10,210 meters. Also, where precisely does Mount Everest start? Why have we decided it starts at sea level? So to conclude, when you say that Mount Everest height is factual and independent from our perception, you're asserting something which is not true. I'm not saying that objective reality doesn't exist, just that we cannot be sure about anything; reality is shaped by our understanding.


    • O'Langism (//) - Classical anarchism is not really good but it's tolerable, and you're a post-colonial anarchist, so that's a plus. Anarcho-syndicalism, really? Among all anarchist societies, the syndicalist ones would be among the worst to live in, in my opinion. Just too much organization. You also believe in democracy; although direct democracy is the least bad form of democracy, it still implies ruling over another. Lastly, like all classical anarchists, you fail to see the connection between civilization/division of labor and class division. Still, not too bad.


    • Meridionalism (//) - I'm a bit torn on this. You support reformism (bad) but you are a secessionist (good). Secession will never happen with reformism, especially in the US. You're a Christian (meh) and you're against theocracies (good). The American South is really conservative and Christian, so I'm pretty sure an independent South would become some kind of quasi-theocracy. You don't like communism and Marxism (good) but you're a socialist (meh). In the end, I'm gonna put you in the C tier.
    • Duck-Citizen (//) - There's really not enough on your page, but reformism and the flirting with capitalism are awful. You're an anarchist though, so I can't put you too low in the ranking.


    • Neo-Glencoeism (//) - The Economics section wasn't too bad for a statist, then you went to say how you support an oligarchy and gun control. Also, what the fuck is the Keeping America Pure section? Still, my criticisms of capitalism also count for you.
    • Aceffism (//) - Capitalist, humanist, world federalist, atheist, hedonist. Not that I'm against hedonism, but capitalist hedonism mixed with consumerism is one of the worst combinations I can think about. Just completely selling your soul. Your metaphysical view is really flawed and just doesn't make sense. Atheism is a religion. It's impossible to know if there's a God or not. Your epistemology and ethics are not bad, but you still hold to morality.



    ★ = Favorites


    Alyson Escalante

    • Gender Nihilism: An Anti-Manifesto
    • Beyond Negativity: What Comes After Gender Nihilism?

    Anarchist Communist Federation

    • Anarchism and Surrealism
    • 1922: The Hong Kong strike

    Anonymous authors

    • Desert ★
    • Post-Left Anarchy (Short Intro)
    • A is for Nihilism
    • Pirate anarchy

    Antonin Artaud

    • Opium Traffic


    • A Call to Arms


    • Anarchy Without Road Maps or Adjectives
    • Nihilist Animism ★

    Baba Yaga, Flower Bomb, Guará, Renzo Conners, Return Fire, Ria Del Montana, Serafinski, The Green Anarchy Collective

    • Insurgency: An Anarchist Journal of Total Destruction ★

    Bob Black

    • The Abolition of Work
    • Technophilia, An Infantile Disorder

    Bobby Whittenberg-James

    • Economic Nihilism: An Anarchist Case Against Economic
    • My Battle Cry ★


    • Iconoclastic Thoughts on a Savage World

    Enzo Martucci

    • In Praise of Chaos
    • Neither Prison, No Policemen ★
    • On Renzo Novatore

    Eric Fleischmann

    • Toward a Cooperative Agorism

    Ezra Buckley

    • She is the Void, she is the All, she is

    Filippo Tommaso Marinetti

    • The Futurist Manifesto

    Flower Bomb

    • No Hope, No Future: Let the Adventures Begin! ★
    • Arming Negativity: Towards the Queerest Attack
    • Decomposing the Masses: Towards Armed Individuality ★
    • What Savages We Must Be: Vegans Without Morality
    • Destroy Race, Destroy Society: Another Diary of Mayhem and Race Nihilism ★

    Fumiko Kaneko

    • Because I Wanted To

    Group of Anarcho-Futurists

    • Anarcho-Futurist Manifesto

    Hakim Bey

    • Against "Legalization"
    • Post-Anarchism Anarchy
    • Against Multiculturalism: "Let a thousand flowers bloom"
    • "Anarchist Religion"?
    • Crisis of Meaning
    • Introduction to the Sufi Path
    • Jihad Revisited
    • Life is Not a Machine
    • The New Nihilism
    • The Periodic Autonomous Zone
    • T.A.Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism
      • The Temporary Autonomous Zone ★
      • Chaos: The Broadsheets of Ontological Anarchism

    Jason McQuinn

    • Whatever You Do, Get Away with It

    Julian Langer

    • An Essay On Green Nihilism ★

    Lao Tzu

    • Tao Te Ching

    Logan Marie Glitterbomb

    • Toward an Agorist-Syndicalist Alliance

    Margaret Killjoy

    • Take What You Need And Compost The Rest: an introduction to post-civilized theory
    • Anarchism Versus Civilization
    • Cooperative Scavenging

    Marquis de Sade

    • Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man

    Martin Pappenheim

    • Conversations With Gavrilo Princip

    Renzo Novatore

    • Toward the Creative Nothing
    • I Am Also a Nihilist


    • Only A Tsunami Will Do: For A Post-Feminist Anarchy

    Roger White

    • Post Colonial Anarchism ★

    Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3)

    • Copywrongs
    • Agora v. Arena


    • Post-literacy
    • Nature is the marvellous that the surrealist seeks


    • Blessed is the Flame: An introduction to concentration camp resistance and anarcho-nihilism ★

    Strangers In a Tangled Wilderness

    • Post-Civ! A Brief Philosophical and Political Introduction to the Concept of Post-civilization

    Ted Kaczynski

    • Letter to a Turkish anarchist

    Timothy C. May

    • Crypto Anarchist Manifesto

    Todd May

    • Power

    Vikky Storm

    • It's Time For "Mad Anarchism"

    Wolfi Landstreicher

    • A Critique, Not a Program: For a Non-Primitivist Anti-Civilization Critique


    • Anarchy & Religion
    • Shut up about 'dual power', tool
    • Morality Vs. Ethics


    • The Unique and Its Property - Max Stirner
    • The Prison Memoirs of a Japanese Woman - Fumiko Kaneko
    • Post-Civ! A Deeper Exploration - Usul of the Blackfoot
    • 1984 - George Orwell
    • Immediatism - Hakim Bey

    Plan to read

    • Bullshit Jobs - David Graeber
    • What Is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
    • Toward the Destruction of Schooling - Jan D. Matthews
    • Life Without Law - Strangers In a Tangled Wilderness
    • Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs - The Curious George Brigade
    • A Short History of the Anarchist Movement in Japan - Junji Sakairi, Oriental Socialist Party, Sakae Osugi, Shintaro Hagiwara, Shyusui Kotoku, Suga Kano, Yoshiharu Hashimoto
    • Steal This Book - Abbie Hoffman
    • An Introduction to the Situationists - Jan D. Matthews
    • The Society of the Spectacle - Guy Debord
    • Anarchy After Leftism - Bob Black
    • The Myth of Human Rights - Bob Black
    • Willful Disobedience - Wolfi Landstreicher
    • Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind - Jason McQuinn
    • Critical Self-Theory & the non-ideological critique of ideology - Jason McQuinn
    • What is Green Anarchy? - Anonymous
    • Barbaric Thoughts: On a Revolutionary Critique of Civilization - Wolfi Landstreicher
    • Beyond Civilized and Primitive - Ran Prieur
    • The Rotting Carcass Behind The Green-Scare: How Anti-Civ Anarchy Became the Most Controversial Position - ziq
    • Becoming Animal: My Feral Individualism - Julian Langer
    • Civilisation: Its Cause and Cure And Other Essays - Edward Carpenter
    • Armed Joy - Alfredo M. Bonanno
    • Postanarchism: a politics of anti-politics - Saul Newman
    • The Politics of Postanarchism - Saul Newman
    • Millenium - Hakim Bey
    • Pirate Utopias - Hakim Bey
    • Post Colonial Anarchism: Essays on race, repression, and culture in communities of color: 1999–2004 - Roger White
    • Capitalism and Schizofrenia - Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari
      • Anti-Oedipus
      • A Thousand Plateaus
    • Beyond Good and Evil - Friedrich Nietzsche
    • Civilization and Its Discontents - Sigmund Freud
    • Bash Back! is Dead; Bash Back Forever!: Concluding Notes - Tegan Eanelli
    • A Dagger of Feral Anarchy - Flower Bomb
    • Descending into Madness: An Anarchist-Nihilist Diary of Anti-Psychiatry - Flower Bomb
    • Anarchy: The Life and Joy of Insubordination - Flower Bomb
    • Fumiko Kaneko (1903–1926) - Kazuki Watanabe
    • Locating An Indigenous Anarchism - Aragorn!
    • Nihilism, Anarchy, and the 21st century - Aragorn!
    • A Non-European Anarchism - Aragorn!
    • Slaughterhouse-Five - Kurt Vonnegut
    • Madness and Civilization - Michel Foucault
    • Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison - Michel Foucault
    • Simulacra and Simulation - Jean Baudrillard
    • Postmodern Anarchism - Lewis Call
    • Brave New World & Brave New World Revisited - Aldous Huxley
    • Anarchism and Taoism - Josh
    • Neither Lord Nor Subject - Bao Jingyan
    • The Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi
    • The Myth of Sisyphus - Albert Camus
    • Industrial Society and Its Future - Ted Kaczynski
    • The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism - Ted Kaczynski
    • Accursed Anarchism: Five Post-Anarchist Meditations on Bataille - Saint Schmidt
    • The Minimum Definition of Intelligence: Theses on the Construction of One’s Own Self-theory - For Ourselves
    • The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto - Vikky Storm and Eme Flores
    • New Libertarian Manifesto - Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3)
    • Chaos, Gaia, Eros - Ralph Abraham
    • Capitalism Realism: Is There No Alternative? - Mark Fisher


    Recommend me some theory if you feel like it.
    Example: PhilosophicHedgehog - Blessed is the Flame - Serafinski
    HeredyBall - Post-Anarchism : A Reader - Duane Rousselle and Süreyyya Evren



    • Post-Left Ego-Nihilism - Why do you think that civilization collapse is inevitable? Add me
    • Floofel's Thought - May ya add me? I'll add ya back.
      • PhilosophicHedgehog - Done! I have a question though, what do you mean by esoteric in your alignments?
    • HelloThere314 - Add me?
    • Neo-Glencoeism- add me
      • PhilosophicHedgehog - Done. Waiting for your ranking of my page - I already know it won't be positive as I'm an anarchist and a nihilist.
    • O'Langism - Add me?
    • Io - Added ya, add me back
    • Neo Post-Left Autism - Could You update me? There is enough information on my page. Also I removed my old comment if You mind it.
      • PhilosophicHedgehog - Done! You certainly improved, you got rid of most of the contradictions your old page had.
    • HelloThere314 - Btw I do think the self is an abstraction that is created, I outline this in my section on the creative nothing. I differentiate between a subject and subjectivity, which is more of a phenomenological state. Along with this i agree with your claims on conceptual space, all I’m saying is that the recognition of this phenomenological state as a concept is forced.
      • HelloThere314 - Also egoism is not an idolization of the self. You seem to think of the self in egoism as Fichte’s absolute I but Stirner sees the self as a creative nothingness, one that creates a conceptual self in its process. It sees that the creative nothing can create anything and sees that there is no reason to follow an enforced cause. This can be best seen in the phrase all things are nothing to me.
        • PhilosophicHedgehog - Well I'll correct my ranking.
          • LordCompost86 - I apologise for my associate's needlessly convoluted language butchering. Seriously HelloThere, could you at least explain something in layperson's terms? Even I find it difficult to follow some of your text walls. Anyway, while I am here, please add me, and I will return the favour later.
            • PhilosophicHedgehog - Added. I would have liked to fully understand your page and thought, but that's simply not possible given my currently scarce philosophical knowledge. Also, I thank you for your kind words, but even if I sometimes struggle I generally can understand these types of hard-philosophy-esque texts.
    • Aceffism - Add me
    • Meridionalism - add me
    • Duck-Citizen - Add me?
    • Revolutionary Eclecticism - Add me?
    • Duck-Citizen - Added you back, and expanded explanation why I support reformism, seems like most people misunderstand it, now I'm curious what is wrong with it from your perspective?
      • PhilosophicHedgehog - You say you have no goal, so why even engage in reformism? The State doesn't decide how you behave, you do. Why wait for change? Be the change. Reclaim your life without having to ask for permission.
        • Duck-Citizen - I don't engage in it, I just see it benefitial for society.
          • PhilosophicHedgehog - Beneficial for society doesn't necessarily mean beneficial for you. And the status quo is certainly not beneficial to society.


    1. Corporatists advocate for society to be divided into parts called corporations, or corporate groups, such as military, agriculture, or scientific associations.
    Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

    Recent changes

  • Stroop • 8 minutes ago
  • MemeControlYT • 17 minutes ago
  • Poiscail • 20 minutes ago
  • Poiscail • 21 minutes ago
  • Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.