Ultra-Enlightenment is an 
extremely progressive, 
post-humanist, 
capitalist, 
globalist, 
liberal ideology which represents the current worldviews of Dragonguard999.
It believes Liberalism to be an expression of Capitalism on a political dimension. It is a 
pro-market albeit 
regulationist ideology, believing that The Market and The State are competing internal tendencies of capitalism that guide it towards its self-development and thus should both be embraced as inevitable elements of equally inevitable civilizational system. Inspired by 
NRx writings it adapts the name of Cathedral for its socio-political system, although it believes Dark Enlightenment understanding of this phenomena is not completely accurate.
Philosophical Beliefs
Mind as Struggle and Negotiation 
Ultra-Enlightenment rejects the notions of indivisible singular ego and the individual as essentialist ideal subject. Instead it proposes to understand the mind as a field of struggle, construction, deconstruction and reconstruction performed by energetic-informational fluxes operating fundamentally in two intertwined “modes” of interacting with each other - struggle of motivational impulses and negotiation of rationalistic reflections. This results in creation of mind functions the nature of which is not reducible to elements or mediums of such functions like neurons but rather can be described as dynamic phenomenon of communication between other such dynamic phenomena constructing a everchanging, emergent network of interactions platforming its ability to self-identify through personal narrative, creating an artifact of it’s own concept and thus enabling feedback self-construction. Such an emergent network, can be called a “Geist” or “Interdividual” and should not be treated as uniquely human or typical to biological brains but rather universal to all forms of thinking structures.
- Struggle of Impulses
The first of the fundamental modes of thought-interaction in this concept is a struggle of impulses. The motivational force behind the mind’s performance can be described as a battle between a number of irrational, emotional impulses of desire that constantly rip apart the stability of the mind's structures. It is because of this that a singular mind can often find itself with contradictory thoughts or change their personality over time. In each moment the mind is constructed and reconstructed by multiplicity of various impulses struggling for domination over its activity, each connecting and resonating with those akin to them and contradicting or suppressing others.
- Negotiation of Reason
Despite the mind being a constant field of struggle between irrational impulses, most people don’t tend to change their opinions all the time despite possessing contradictory impulses and emotional sentiments. Instead we constantly make compromises with ourselves to achieve some level of satisfaction with all of our impulses despite their contradictory nature. This is a result of the second of fundamental modes of mind’s internal interactions, the negotiation of reason. As thoughts and impulses struggle with each other they construct an emergent network that starts to construct patterns of thinking activity and logic responding to impulsive motivation. This function of the mind results in its tendency to self-identify with a narrative about itself that structures the dynamic formlessness of its struggles into a relatively more stable but still negotiable and changing order. Through this impulsively taken actions and desires are rationalized and reinforced or juxtaposed with their equivalents creating synthesized convictions, beliefs etc. achieved through negative resolution of their contradictions or suppression of their aspects. At the same time this rational process of the mind is capable of critique of the structure which it embodies and thus moved by new experiences and impulses drawn from such it can deconstruct and recreate new narratives of it’s identity, and reconfigure the order of rules around which it works to negotiate with struggling impulses to reach consensus.
Geists and Interdividualism 
Because of its beliefs about the individual and mind Ultra-Enlightenment sees the western philosophical dichotomy of 
Individual-Collective 
as both inaccurate to reality and restraining us from social evolution. Since it asks us to consider the self not as an individual ego but rather a synchronized multiplicity of informational-energetic fluxes, interacting through impulsive struggle and rational negotiation, Ultra-Enlightenment believes a person can be considered an emergent phenomenon that arises when information is communicated with enough intensity and in a synchronized manner within the bounds of a system, creating a dynamic network of resonating thoughts existing only through relation to each other. In the case of a human being this system is neurons, thus the mind emerges from communication of thoughts that happens within neurons but cannot be reduced merely to that medium of communication but is found in the active relationships between them. This nature of a person can be understood as something similar to concepts of 
hegelian geist, 
deleuzoguattarian territory or 
Lacan's narrative identity. The recognition of persons as an entity that still emerges from multiplicity of dividual parts as a manifestation of communicative interaction between them gives rise to Ultra-Enlightenment's belief in what it calls "Interdividualism".
This different viewpoint on the nature of persons as geists must lead to a fundamental shift in view of collectives. Instead of seeing them as separate and opposing phenomena to singular persons, communities can be considered another form of geists that differ from their component members only in terms of scale. Much like humans are phenomena of emergent flow of information so too are social-groups, nations, civilizations etc. They too attain their own forms of desires, identities and structured integrity experienced by their members in the form of social and crowd psychology as well as social rules and constructs that can be considered their instance of reason’s negotiation with impulses and its own self. Societies emerge from interactions between people much like people emerge from interaction between thoughts. Society should not be seen as simply a grouping of indivisible individuals or some supreme entity whose interest override people participating in it, but rather a storm-like flux of thoughts and desires that construct many, often overlapping and sometimes opposing identities as manifestations of interaction of drives and information. Mind with many thoughts and desires that sometimes also can be interconnected and reinforce each other or struggle and contradict each other. This shift is significant since despite the fact that we ourselves emerge from thought-multiplicities it neither makes us perceive our individual thoughts as less important than our "the whole" nor do we see our individual thoughts as more important than our emergent personhood. Both our particular thoughts and our emergent personhood is "us", thus this logic should also be applied on interpersonal structures, since their nature is no different from our own selves. This line of thought leads Ultra-Enligthenment to advocate for rejection and transcendence of the individual-collective axis instead opting for a framework in which personhood could be attained on any level through evident capability for self-identification as well as approaching the conflicts between bigger and smaller scale minds from a more neutral perspective that does not favor either by principle.
Faustian Spirit
Ultra-Enligthenment adapts a modified version of the 
Neo-Faustian interpretation of the Faustian Spirit. It believes that it is the characteristic of the condition of intelligent life to be always dissatisfied with living. This leads us to pursue an unending struggle to gain infinite power, knowledge and control over the universe. Ultra-Enlightenment, much like Neo-Faustianism, believes we should not condemn this drive but embrace it. Through this powerful greed we are pushed to build civilizations, pursue understanding of the cosmos, innovate new technologies and create art. The Faustian Spirit can thus be seen as an expression of the will-to-power of the civilizational-interdividual. The Faustian Spirit thus expresses itself as a drive towards investment of resources and labour towards long-term perpetuation of life achieved through feeding civilization with new paths of improvement and rewarding its individual components through symbolical immortalisation. At the same time Ultra-Enlightenment believes that humanity in its pursuit of Faustian empowerement is inherently pushed towards extinction of the "human" category which by its very nature is limited. Life's thirst for power leads to annihilation of its form and surrender of particular beings to greater structures. While on a personal level this is experienced as individual empowerment, it de facto means being captured by an increasingly expanding civilizational organism that assembles itself through us into a greater being. Our activity becomes conditioned by its internal infrastructure while it also expands our individual capabilities as we share in its sovereignty.
Ultra-Enlightenment believes this drive to be fundamental to nature of intelligence, evidence of which can be found in all cultures around the world. Still Ultra-Enligthenment believes that the ideology of Liberalism produced under the influence of 
Enlightenment has come the closest to embracing this drive on a political dimension. Thus Ultra-Enlightenment believes that the Faustian Spirit necesserly leads to the spread and expansion of the ideas born from this drift. A drive towards absolute liberation, where liberty is seen as power to influence the world. In this line of thought then pursuit of Liberalism and the Faustian Spirit means pursuit of universalist and continuous empowerment and desire to increase the total power of intelligence as a whole.
Liberty as Power 
For Ultra-Enlightenment the idea of "liberty" is synonymous with the notion of pure power understood as the creative potential of a subject. In essence the fundamental pursuit of liberation should be conceptualized as nothing else but an expansion of creative potential of whatever subject of such emancipation may be. Such expansion according to Ultra-Enlightenment can be thought of and pursued on two dimensions. First in an external manner, it is to be understood as expansion of control a given subject possesses over their environment allowing it to act as a direct cause of creation and re-creation of things external to itself. This, according to Ultra-Enlightenment can be pursued through creation of structures and objects increasing given subjects external power such as technological devices and institutional organizations, as well as through deconstruction of such structures that suppress the subject's potential. Second is the internal dimension in which liberty is expressed through the subject's capability of internal self-creation, capacity to rethink and redefine its own self and its relationships with the environment. According to Ultra-Enlightenment this dimension of liberty can be pursued through process of self-reflection, thought experimentation and deconstruction of subject's assumptions about reality and its own self as well as mental blockages and fears that may stop the subject from acting on their desires without reason other than internalized disciplinary structure, thus limiting their potential.
This understanding of liberty as creative power also leads Ultra-Enlightenment to reject the dichotomy of 
liberty-security 
axis. In Ultra-Enlightenment's mind, the idea of "liberty" understood as merely lack of restrictions or autonomy to act on arbitrary pursuits without any degree of security means a complete lack of control over external environment and thus it conditions state of constant fear in which internal mental blockages extensively limit subject's capability to freely act on their desire to create and re-create reality. At the same time security without autonomy of subjects is simply a complete delusion. One cannot be secure at the same time while having no capability to act on their creative potential autonomously as that means their entire existence is dependent on external authority that may take away their guarantees of safety at any time without repercussions. It is only in pursuit of both internal and external control that the subject can achieve an increase in their liberation
Kinship of Intellects 
Ultra-Enlightenment advocates for assertion of universalist fraternity of intelligence as a principle to guide interaction between not just humans but all intelligent beings. This belief is conditioned by two other approaches to the character and nature of intelligence.
First of all, intelligence cannot be essentialized as a uniquely human trait. It is a function of self-artificisation meaning the process of self-aware reflection that thanks to treating itself as an artefact of its own concept, it is able to disable and enable its own restrictions, in accordance with its own understanding of themselves. What does it mean in practice is that intelligence is not something that arises from specific experience of human self-aware subjectivity, such as our social reflexes, but rather is an ability to self-construct, self-invent and self-reinvent oneself in accordance with the will. Such character of intelligence therefore cannot be constrained merely to human experience and could potentially be observed in all sufficiently developed forms of natural and artificial life.
Second of all Ultra-Enlightenment believes that since all forms of intellect, understood as a phenomena of communication that attains agency and thus ability to self-construct in accordance with will (a Geist) are able to create a higher form of intellect through interaction with each other, then they can all be perceived as kindred beings. The potentiality of creating a supreme universal Geist through opening communication between all intelligent agents in the universe, and thus also creating a universal common will, that could legitimize existence of a universal society, able to attain greater empowerment of its subjects than any other, serves here as justification to see all its potential subjects as kindred beings even before it is created. In that way the use of the principle based on the potential future, serves as a way to steer the present towards it, as a self-fulfilling prophecy (or hyperstition).
It is important to note that fraternity of intelligence does not imply lack of conflict or pacifism, as it is inevitable that desires of different wills will in some way clash with each other. Even a single brain can possess conflicting thoughts. Nevertheless the principle does imply instilment of certain perception of a universal kinship, which interests would become something to consider even in case of a major conflict between its subjects, as well as it legitimizes them as subjects to institutions such as citizenship.
Hyperstition, Progress and Meta-Modernism
Storytelling Animals
Ever since hominids attained the capability for abstract thinking they have been practicing the telling of narratives. Stories that took their sensory information and connected them into ordered paths of cause and effect. Simplified models of the chaotic reality, while imperfect, allowed for bringing a certain degree of predictability into their lives as well as providing a feeling of security in face of the confusing cosmos. The assumption of truth that sprang from such inventions quickly became one of the guiding forces of human collective behaviors, possessing minds with their internal logics. From among such narratives the ones most important to socio-political organization were “grand narratives” or “metanarratives” concerning the narratives themselves and contextualizing smaller narratives into a larger story of world history itself. Throughout human civilization’s development we can trace at least three different periods each characterized by a different relationship with metanarratives such as the idea of “progress” up to this day. Though it is important to note that the word “periods” wrongly implies in itself the three as some sort of natural universal progression, while they in fact should be better understood as modes of relating to time and the world that simply shifted in their respective prevalence.
Cycles of Life
The first period most often called 
“pre-modern” was characterized by perception of time as cyclical. People lived alongside the rhythm of nature that ordered their societies not towards a future direction but day-to-day survival and awaiting only cyclical events such as solstices rather than a “goal” of some kind, at best linearity of time was merely a shallow expectation of the end times in an unspecified future. Thus the idea of progress did not make much sense. The metanarrative of truth was also unquestioned and sat safely on the assumption of self-evident 
supernatural authority that provided an anchor of objectivity against the idea of possible illusions of the senses and perspective.
A Path Forward
This changed with the event we call the Enlightenment. While it wasn’t the first case of questioning the pre-modern perceptions by any means, it was still, thanks to material developments in Europe at the time, the first instance it sparked such a common socio-psychological transformation. As science revealed more about the universe and provided an increasing number of innovative technologies changing society forever, the idea of “moving forward” could take root in a deeper way than merely as mythological awaiting of 
“end times”. Things simply seemed to be changing towards something and every step was visible. At the same time the development of communication and transport increased exchange of ideas thus it wasn’t long before supernaturality lost its monopoly on truth and thus its self-evidence thus beginning the Death of God and the age of modernity. 
Modernism thus as the second dominant mode of relating to time was characterized by flourishing of metanarratives constructing stories about linear and ontological progress of civilization. Progression through time “towards” something in modernism was recognized commonly as an inherent feature of reality. Albeit rather than having singular self-evident truth, modernism was marked by a battle of competing 
grand narratives 
disagreeing on the exact path and goal of ontological progress.
- Collapse of All Directions
Nevertheless modernistic naivete was not meant to last. As philosophy further advanced there came a time for the questioning reason to question itself. Soon enough people came to understand that neither politics nor even science itself can really overcome the challenge of relativity. Objective truth thus remains locked away. At the same time the idea of 
ontological progress collapsed against that same 
deconstructive realization. In the world of discourses relativizing our idea of reality and polluting every attempt at grasping it with perspective, it was impossible to imagine ontological objective progress. In this view of highly skeptical cynicism, generally known as 
postmodernism, history once again couldn't have a direction. Instead society would only be conceived as a victim of violent winds of power relations pushing it unpredictably, each into their respective personal goal.
- Critique of Critique
For a long time it seemed like postmodernism shall remain a dead end for our relationships with metanarratives, but in recent years we could witness an emergent new trend that questions postmodern conclusions. 
Metamodernism is still a young and hard to pin down concept, most often defined by some sort of oscillation or going beyond the dichotomies of modernist and postmodernist modes of relating to metanarratives like meaning or truth. From Ultra-Enlightenment’s perspective though, metamodernism could be best understood as “postmodern critique of postmodern critique”, rejecting paralyzing cynicism of postmodern critique, seeing it as at least partially coping mechanism meant to shield us from facing the fear of risk dedication brings and concluding that conscious creative re-engagement with metanarratives and critical approach to realism is possible. How then in such a case, would metamodern mode of engaging with the idea of progress look like? Ultra-Enlightenment agrees with postmodern assertion that progress is not ontological but still proposes that the 
accelerationist concept of “hyperstition” can reveal to us a mechanism that could allow civilization to attain progressive directions. In simplest possible terms a hyperstition is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a fiction that brings itself into reality through the way it influences human behavior. This is possible specifically because potential futures are always in a way already present within their past but their elements are disassembled, unordered merely hinting at potential thus activating hyperstitional mechanics. The more assembled a future is then the more likely it is to condition civilization into forcing it into bringing it into reality. This is where the concept of hyperstitional metamodern progress can be born.
Gravity from the Future 
For the sake of this argument time should not be thought of as a linear pathway towards a goal but rather imagined as a galaxy filled with black holes representing potential futures. Our present in this metaphor can be seen as a rogue planet flying through the galaxy, normally having no inherent goal or direction, violently thrown around by various gravitational forces. At some point though the planet might be caught into orbit of one of various black holes. From that point the planet will get ever closer to the center of the gravitational field that caught it. Escape is still theoretically possible but as time goes on and we get ever closer to the center of gravity such change of course requires larger effort. The closer the future is to its realization the more it conditions the present into fulfilling it as material and social forces lock into causal processes making the situation increasingly inevitable. At some point the planet passes through a temporal event-horizon and the material and social conditions become impossible to change in certain aspects. A progressive vector through time emerges and is impossible to stop. We are captured by the future. Progress arises not as ontological but emergent from the pull of the potential future. Movement in time and its direction can be thus looked at and thought of in a way similar to how speculative realism proposes to talk about noumenal objects: A direction of increasing probability within an uncertain contingency rather than a linear path towards certainty.
Cosmic Horror of Enlightenment 
WIP
Darwinist Critique of Eugenics 
WIP
Political Beliefs
The Cathedral 
In Ultra-Enlightenment's view, the term of "Cathedral" describes a self-organizing socio-political system, that manifests itself as a cultural, economic and political hegemony of Liberalism. Thus the Cathedral can be seen as the socio-political dimension of the modern Liberal Civilization, produced by the dynamics of Capitalism. Ultra-Enlightenment believes the Cathedral to be the fundamental structure that both sustains the existence and regulates the functions of Liberalism as hegemonic ideological force in the world.
It is important to note that the Cathedral is not a tangible organisation, but rather a decentralised socio-psychological system that shapes the framework of political ontology in people being subject to it. Since the Cathedral embodies the Liberal hegemony of thought as an international social organism, in Ultra-Enlightenment's view it ought to be protected from attempts to sabotage it's functioning, as well as allowed to act through people in it's strive for constant improvement and adaptation to changes in the world, through repeated processes of deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation. Ultra-Enlightenment rejects NRx's characterisation of the Cathedral as 
"Bio-Leninist", instead believing its so called progressive nature to be a product of the fact it embodies hyperstitional causal processes assembling the liberal-capitalist future that captures our present into it's time-gravitational pull, leading it to deconstruction of traditional structures and promotion of universalist ideas enabling global order of capital and informational exchange and not simple power play of generating loyalty among the weak or
disenfranchised.
Ultra-Enlightenment believes it is possible to distinguish several main pillars of Cathedral's functioning as supreme global socio-political machine:
Capitalist Realism
A social phenomena described best by 
left-accelerationist thinker 
Mark Fisher. He points out how the capitalist economic system has ingrained itself into our culture and social psychology to the point it is impossible to imagine an end to or exit from the capitalist reality. It thus constructs an ontological system, in which commercialisation enters every facet of our thinking. Objects and activities are almost always primarly judged through the lense of their economic profitability, desires are created and steered through omnipresent marketing and any kind of rebellion becomes quickly supressed through commercialisation and integration of it into the capitalist system, thus paradoxically reinforcing it.
Liberal Political Hegemony
The Liberal Political Hegemony is a phenomenon that can be understood as the political culture, shaped by dominance of liberal values in the minds of the subjects of the Cathedral. Through the omnipresence of liberal values in normative systems, laws, media, education and popular culture liberalism affirms itself as the "default" political position, that stands as the basic social fact of political reality it creates. In this state society thus sees holding liberal values as a 
"centrist" and non-controversial worldview, which forces all of the political reality to organize itself around it. Thus to stay relevant to the political market of ideas, created in this socio-political order, different forms of political thought are forced to adopt liberalism as a indispensible basis of their proposed social order.
This results in suppression of non-liberal forms of thought, forcing them out of mainstream politics and allowing for pacification of their followers, both through depriving them of conventional means of political practice as well as normalisation of their de-platforming.
Liberal World Order
The Liberal World Order can be understood as the geopolitical and international order, in which the liberal values are seen as "default" and are enforced by a number of international liberal institutions and liberal states that possess dominant positions in the international power structure. The LWO is thus sustained as an organized socio-political organism, in which institutions such as UN, NATO, IMF, World Bank etc. and liberal states such as USA and EU 27 members all serve as organs of facilitating the behaviour of states in the world towards reinforcement of liberal hegemony of thought and counter-acting the influence of ideologies hostile to Liberalism, platformed by illiberal states through "harder" means than cultural influence. Those can include everything from economic pressure to direct military intervention.
Outsider Cells
Improvement and evolution requires some form of outside pressure. Thus Ultra-Enlightenment believes that for the sake of sustainment of the Cathedral, the system must allow for the continuous existence of alternative and radical forms of thought in a controlled environment. This action has several benefits. First this serves as a filter that allows illiberal radical thinkers to voice and produce their ideas in a controlled environment, instead of creating unmonitored underground. Secondly the presence of illiberal thinkers, such as representatives of the 
Post-Left and NRx, allows the Cathedral to gain an outsider's perspective on its own structure and thus leads it to improved self-reflection. Finally the existence of illiberal thinkers in a controlled environment and their ideologically productive activity creates pressure on the Cathedral to constantly self-revolutionize, improve on its flaws, integrate new ideas and evolve towards a more perfected system.
Capitalism, Entropy and Complexity 
Will rewrite this...
Blue Accelerationism
- What is Accelerationism?
To understand the concept of "Blue" Accelerationism, practiced and advocated by Ultra-Enlightenment, first it is important to explain and dispel several misconceptions around the idea of Accelerationism and explain what it actually stands for. There's a common misconception that the point of Accelerationism is to "push" contradictions within a system through radical action to hasten or "accelerate" its collapse. In actuality Accelerationism refers not to this nor even any other specific form of political action. What Accelerationism is, is a philosophical and analytic framework of looking at processes of deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation that drive modern capitalism and its self-revolutions.
"Territories" are a term derived from works of philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, that can be in a simple way defined as process of "being", whether it be through exercising control, exclusion, inclusion, division etc. of specific things or processes in specific ways the greater structure emerges with its own identity as territorialized. This can be thought of with the analogy of a city, that in itself is not as much a "thing" but a process of including what is "part" of the city and excluding its outside, things that happen within the city, its culture, and how it constantly changes but retains itself as a continuous larger process. "Territory" of course isn't something that is supposed to describe exclusively things connected to geographic locations but everything that can be described as such a process of "becoming" or "being". This of course includes capitalism, society and everything that exists within its grasp. Deterritorialisation here then can be understood as a process of mutation, transformation or disintegration of a territory while reterritorialisation is the process of territories' reintegration and strengthening.
For Accelerationism, the main point of interest is how do those processes work within the context of Capitalism, what does it mean for the future and to some extent what can be done to most effectively "sail through it". While all members of the "accelerosphere" generally share a common framework when approaching the first question, it is the last two that create the major divisions between accelerationist theorists, being responsible for fragmentation into sub-branches such as R/Acc, Z/Acc, U/Acc or L/Acc. The purpose itself is in general the same for all of them. To somehow deal with the process of capital "exiting from man". The situation for Accelerationist theorists can be then put in analogy of a helmsman and ocean. Acceleration is the ocean, it is a process which cannot be simply taken over or seen as "subject" to human power but rather a reality in which we exist. The helmsman here, "the man" is not a grand "maker of his destiny" he merely has his ship, his knowledge of navigation and other tools that he was allowed to use by the ocean he sails through. He will never truly conquer the ocean but is forever destined to deal with its violent winds and waves. The crucial division between different branches of accelerationism here then can be thought of as different opinions on how to build the best ship for the voyage and whether it’s possible to build one at all.
- Blue Accelerationism
With that said Blue Accelerationism or Blu/Acc that Ultra-Enlightenment practices can be thought exactly as one of the many approaches towards the question of dealing with the "ocean" of capitalist Acceleration. Blu/Acc assumes other strains of Accelerationist thought firstly underestimate the importance and role of the regulatory liberal state within the process of capitalistic deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation. It is true that capitalism as a system follows a trend of deterritorialisation of many of so many things that prove themselves unable to survive within its utility-effciency oriented environment, melting away cultures, communities, traditions and identities, turning them at best into commodified fuel for its expansion or wiping them away completely from the face of the Earth. This destructive power, of capitalism, exemplified in the workings of the market that shows no mercy to anything unprofitable often makes us forget and underestimate the other reterritorializing face of capitalism. Because indeed the process of capitalism is not merely the market, it could never be merely the market, exactly because it's deterritorialising nature, to survive it requires its shadow partner of self-regulation. This relationship of the market and the state thus constitutes the nature of capitalism's survival. Now, many projects that plan to deal with this reality advocate for pushing the boundaries of acceleration by "removing the breaks", attacking the foundations that anchor the process of reterritorialisation, the liberal state, the family unit etc., or simply ensuring one's survival awaiting its "inevitable" burn-out, others such as many of the NRx essentially believe the process can be dealt with through proper reorganization of power structures. A patchwork of micro-states to counter Capital's overgrowth and a monarchical figure to keep guarantee such order and protection from the mass-democratic state, that so easily finds itself in the arms-race of growth between market and itself.
Blu/Acc puts into doubt the idea that either of these approaches can succeed in surviving the reality of the "ocean" we're sailing through. In fact all of them stand on two assumptions that Blu/Acc points to as errors. First is the assumption that the state is something that is easily alterable or removable or inferior to the process of the market despite possessing an indispensable role in the system that throughout its existence proved itself to effectively fulfill its purpose. Second error is the fact that this fixation on the need to abolish the process or contain, betrays a fundamentally anthropocentric perspective that values conservation of the human identity so high that it finds itself unable to conceptualize an alternative route for life and civilization and thus has to escape into belief of possible subjugation and "defeat" of the process despite knowing that the "ocean" can only be "sailed through" and never completely conquered.
Therefore the approach practiced by Ultra-Enlightenment in the form of Blu/Acc does not assume that the process of capitalism can or should be abolished or contained. Instead it proposes to address civilizational issues it creates in two ways. First of all, it once again brings attention to the fact that it is not merely the market that evolves and adapts to practice its deterritorialising profit-seeking but the state in its pursuit of regulation and preservation of the system to which both market and state belong has altered significantly as well. The regulatory liberal state of today is not a mere monopoly on violence, nor a geographically, culturally or legally bounded entity like a country. Much like the globalized market freed itself from similar chains, so did the state as it became the international order of entangled institutions and laws working on a scale beyond any singular localisation on Earth, or to an extent even beyond it. In this aspect Blu/Acc believes one has to acknowledge that the destruction done by the market is to some extent inevitable but it is an error to assume this will lead to a burn-out or a sort of hyper-individuated society without greater territories. As history has proven the accompanying tendency of the deterritorialising and expanding market, known as The State or Regulation, remains equally evolving and able to most likely prevent prophecies of collapse posed by this belief and therefore forces us to face reality that we still have to live with the process of capitalism itself. This thus leads to the second point Blu/Acc approach tries to make. This being, if Capitalism and humanity are growingly incompatible, and Capitalism is not removable then it is humanity that has to be removed or rather moved past. As capitalism alters the environment, both geographic and social around it, serving only the purposes of maximizing utility-efficiency and self-preservation of such maximization, it is increasingly hard for the human, not adapted to this hyper-technological mode of being, to live. The solution Blu/Acc offers as a way of "enduring through" is thus shedding exactly the identity that is unable to survive within the unstoppably changing environment. To move past the human into the post-human whatever it might be, on the most surface level this might mean a merging with our mechanical creations or in an alternative scenario leaving it up to artificial species of more fit inheritors, thus fulfilling in strange way Fukuyama's prophecy of the end of history, or at least the human one. But in a more tangible way this transformation can already be witnessed as happening already on certain level of the social. The liberal abstracting of human experience into generalized ideas of "humanity" as well as liberal-capitalist dynamics becoming absolute mediator of all relevant decision-making are signs that in many ways the world has already started to remove itself from the clutches of human subjectivity and replace it with decentralized, impersonal system that utilizing human intelligence emerges as its higher instance that integrates man into a reality released from limitations its ancestors put on it. The course of necessary action is the same, to continue still, despite the escalation of the arms-race between the market and the state, balancing the two and seeing their perpetual growth and flourishing of their tension’s creative potential as long as it can possibly exist, perhaps even beyond the death of stars. We might die on our way or at the finish line, but it will definitely be an interesting journey.
The Cathedral’s Agony and its Allure 
Liberalism isn’t a political project, but an invasion of politics by capitalism. Emerging from that process is a dynamic decentralized structure known as the Cathedral, the mind of techno-social planetary intelligence. At the heart of this structure lies a paradoxical relationship between its internally omnipresent drives, fuelling its creatively-destructive processes and flexible resilience.
The Eros of the State 
The State is a rationalization of reality, creation of rules, regulatory practice, defining of boundaries and procedures. It is Cathedral’s and Capitalism’s anchor of stability and instinct of self-preservation. The State should not be thought of as any particular state here or even the general idea of nation-state but even more generalized civilizational tendency towards regulation and rationalization of collective behavior through institutionalization expressing itself as customs, traditions, laws, rituals, procedures, associations, formal structures and informal organization. It is convergence, negotiation and connection itself present in all structuralizing and territorializing interactions. The State thus produces organs that regulate flows of desire directing them towards civilizational infrastructural maintenance and platforming organized power exercise on each relative macro-scale, impossible to achieve by any structure’s micro-actors individually.
The Thanatos of the Market 
The Market is a constantly expanding field of exchange. Exchange is fundamentally a transgression, a crossing of boundaries, dismantlement of structured unity, dynamization of reality and deconstruction of established rules. For the Cathedral and Capitalism as a whole it is the process of self-destruction that releases new potentialities allowing for formation and re-formation of mixtures and differentiation of objects entangled within it. Expressing itself in competition, transfer and exchange of capital, commodities, ideas and cultures the Market functions as a deconstructive force that takes over platforming structures of the State and launches itself into beyond, racing both within and against regulatory organs, using the rules they establish and complementing them by being their deadly violation, thus dynamizing Capitalist body through self-destruction and forcing it into constant reinvention to adapt to new conditions emergent from market activity.
The Agony of Liberalism 
Liberalism is violent, immeasurably, inconceivably violent. But the icy savagery of Liberalism isn’t so shallow as to be merely an instrument subjected to telos of repression against deviations from normativity. The violence so crucial for the functioning and creative capabilities of Liberalism is rather its violence against itself, elementary immanent violence, the heart of its agonizing transformations. In Liberalism the State and the Market remain both in constant tension as civilizational tendencies, racing against each-other as organization of rules and transgressive interactions, while being co-dependent on each other at the same time constructing together a formless yet resilient order. This race does not express itself merely in some binary opposition or a linear sequence of changes but rather as an omnipresent, all-encompassing self-creating struggle and negotiation, happening in a singular moment all at once, all the time. As much as the general deconstructive tendency of the Market clashes against the regulatory drive of the State, so do their expressions battle against each other. Rules against actors that transgress them of course, but also rules against other rules and structures of their enforcement against other such entities, corporations, institutions, states, political parties, people, ideas, currencies, commodities. Each structure remains in constant tension against other such structures and against structures containing it and contained by it, which as well remain in tension against equivalents of each. At the same time each of these structures negotiates constantly and organizes itself internally and in relation to external structures like themselves.
Private property for example is emergent from legal rationalization of having power over objects, spaces, resources etc. thus it is dependent on and born from the State but at the same time it is the fundamental platform for exchange of capital and commodities, being the vehicle of deconstruction Markets create. The collapse of borders between entities performing exchanges like two communities on the other hand enables construction of inter-communal order of interactions etc. The same tension happens internally as collapse of some borders on a communal level enabled by exchange might have allowed for formation and re-organization of internal divisions within both communities, collapsing old structures and creating new ones, again and again.
Arising from this is a sado-masochistic system that always seemingly hangs on the brink of death yet remains undying. It remains without end in a state of war against itself and everything else on every dimension of its being while at the same it paradoxically constantly strives for internal agreement. This is the Agony of Liberalism and within it sits the source of Cathedral’s productive power and with it its allure. Through suspension in this multi-dimensional tension, liberalism produces an ever-expanding space of creative-destruction platforming a growing range of potential endeavors produced by its constant internal self-conflict and its elements’ strategies of competition while sustaining a general, negotiable and evolving framework of social infrastructure allowing for this expansion long-term and protecting it from total catabolic collapse. Constant birth of new possibilities that still never crash the system. Insurrection is already accounted for as a function within the greater body.
The Semi-Cryptocratic Aspect of Liberal Democracy 
The Shadow Polygon
Liberal Democracy is one of the most successful political systems in history. Spread throughout the world thanks to its malleability of forms and establishing the democratic principle as a new power legitimizing mythos equal and transcending the influence of the once dominant “divine right of kings,” it became a political memetic hegemony and a model of Cathedral’s governance. At its heart lies a negotiable rule of law, that depersonalized from people subject to it still remains dynamized through pluralistic discourse. But contrary to what many critics of democracy believe Liberal Democracy is a system much more complex than a simple rule of mob that sets policy with no long-term plan in sight. The democratically elected officials are important decision makers of course but the system, thus legitimized through the democratic communication with the masses, and knowledgeable of their desires thanks to it, at the same time utilizes a number of hidden power centers that influence policy, providing their insights and long-term planning that transcends particular politicians’ terms.
The Expertise of the Lobby
Expertise is always a highly valued quality of advisors to governing powers. Still the common problem with any “evidence-based policy” is that experts themselves always tend to have their own biases that influence their methodology, presentation of results as well as what issues they focus on. Liberal Democracy nevertheless has developed a practice capable of utilizing such expertise while introducing an aspect of competition that balances the problem of bias in some manner. The commonly distrusted part of liberal democratic system, lobbying, is often misrepresented as simply a way to “buy” policy. In truth, while finances always play a role like they do in any kind of organized activity, lobbying above all is a competition of advisory expertise. The Corporate-Managerial Complex, NGOs and interest groups when engaged in lobbying, utilize hired or their organizational representatives that try to appeal to political authorities through making a case for specific policy. Arguing that the goals of the group they represent align with the benefit of government and society as a whole. In the process of this they are forced to gather data that supports their case and present it to decision makers that at the same time are aware that the case is made by a specific interest group that influences the bias of the issue's presentation. Lobbyists through competing over government’s attention to issues they find important and arguing how to address them provide an additional expertise-infused dimension to liberal democratic policy-making beyond just elected officials' generalized promises to voter blocs.
The Bureaucratic Machine
Every organized institution requires its own form of bureaucratic apparatus that manages its day-to-day administrative functions. Liberal democratic systems are no different. The fact that such an unelected body of “faceless” officials is required to execute orders of a democratic decision-making organs provides those officials with a high degree of power while at the same time their relationship with elected bodies gives them legitimacy as parts of the system possessing a democratic mandate. The bureaucrats thus in Liberal Democracy become another shadow center of power, as their position gives them capability of becoming a long-term foundation of stability, providing the system with a structure that doesn’t stop functioning despite changes in government or crises of leadership in the circles of top decision-makers in exchange for providing them with ability to execute their duties in accordance to their own judgments. Additionally as The Problem of the Mad King shows us faceless bureaucrats can become one of Liberal Democracy’s safety mechanisms that protect the system from being attacked by actors infiltrating its elected power structures.
The Clandestine Wardens
Intelligence agencies are often overlooked in analysis of Liberal Democracies as governmental systems but they nevertheless are a crucial shadow power center in modern liberal states. While in theory intelligence agencies are merely institutions that provide spycraft services to the government’s use, they possess a unique systemic position that gives them a high degree of influence due to their function being connected to handling strategically significant information. Intelligence gathering is a fundamental part in management of crises, discerning threats and creation of long-term security strategies. Intelligence services thus with their institutional organization transcending particular terms and changes of government serve the liberal democratic system by providing it with a constantly functioning center of security management and strategic planning, that identifies current and potential threats and accordingly prepares the system to face them, in exchange for the leverage handling significant information provides them.
World Order and Cold Globalism 
As Nick Land points out in his work on “Cold Anarchy” idealist conceptions of global transcendental order are impossible to fulfill. Numerous problems from information processing of decision centers to internal conflicts inevitably ripping apart centralized world systems prevent any possibility of ever achieving a traditional idea of “World Government.” The world is simply too big and complex to be brought together in a centralized manner. But this does not necessarily mean that a “unified world” is completely out of reach.
Cold Globalism is a proposition that as various polities create interdependent relationships with each other, they slowly entangle themselves into an emergent global network which in turn influences their activity. As nations, corporations and international institutions entangle themselves in this network, questioning the framework within which they work becomes increasingly risky and thus interests of all elements slowly become aligned in a way that favors sustaining the emergent world order and its normative frames. While minor conflicts and explosions of rule-breaking can still occur from time to time, collapse of the system becomes increasingly unthinkable and unrealistic as globalization captures everything, disincentivizing resistance ever further, slowly constructing a global “cold collective” of overlapping regulatory bodies and aligned interests that keep the world order together despite lacking any central government. Instead of a completely fragmented “Patchwork” a global “Network” emerges in the form resembling the concept of “Postmodern State”. A “World Government without Government” based around collective interest alignment and peer regulation rather than a top-down, global legal hierarchy.
European Union as Functional Negative Democracy 
WIP
The Cathedral in the Age of Netocracy 
WIP
Reading List
1 Asterisk - Fragmentary reading
2 Asterisks - Confrontational reading/Hostile perspective study
Books and Articles
Aleksandr Dugin: Foundations of Geopolitics** 
- Aleksandr Dugin: The Fourth Political Theory**
Alexander Bard & 
Jan Söderqvist: Netocracy - The New Power Elite and Life After Capitalism
- Anu Bradford: The Brussels Effect - How the European Union Rules the World
Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson: Why Nations Fail - The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty
Eugene Thacker: In The Dust of This Planet - Horror of Philosophy vol. I 
- Eugene Thacker: Starry Speculative Corpse - Horror of Philosophy vol. II
- Eugene Thacker: Tentacles Longer Than Night - Horror of Philosophy vol. III
Francis Fukuyama: The End of History and the Last Man 
- Friedrich Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil
- Friedrich Nietzsche: The Antichrist
- Friedrich Nietzsche: The Gay Science
- Friedrich Nietzsche: The Will to Power
- Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra
- Friedrich Nietzsche: Twilight of the Idols
- Georg W. F. Hegel: Phenomenology of Spirit
Georges Bataille: Erotism - Death & Sensuality- Georges Bataille: Inner Experience
- Georges Bataille: The Accursed Share: An Essay on The General Economy, Vol. I: Consumption
- Georges Bataille: Theory of Religion
- Fred Botting and Scott Wilson: The Bataille Reader*
Gruppo di Nun: Revolutionary Demonology* 
Guy Debord: The Society of the Spectacle
Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari: Anti-Oedipus 
- Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari: A Thousand Plateaus
- Gilles Deleuze: Postscript on the Societies of Control
James Ellis: A Methodology of Possession - On the Philosophy of Nick Land 
- Jason Josephson Storm: Metamodernism - The Future of Theory
Jean Baudrillard: Simulacra and Simulation 
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: On The Social Contract 
Jeremy Gilbert: Neoliberal Culture*
Mark Fisher: Capitalist Realism - Is There No Alternative? 
- Mark Fisher: Terminator vs Avatar - Notes on Accelerationism
Martin Heidegger: The Question Concerning Technology 
Michel Foucault: The Archeology of Knowledge- Michel Foucault: The Birth of Biopolitics - Lectures at the College de France, 1978-79*
- Mitchell Dean & Daniel Zamora: The Last Man Takes LSD - Foucault and the End of Revolution*
- Nick Land: A Quick and Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism
- Nick Land: Cold Anarchy
- Nick Land: Fanged Noumena
- Nick Land: Templexity - Disordered Loops through Shanghai Time
- Nick Land: The Dark Enlightenment**
- Nick Land: The Thirst for Annihilation
- Nick Land: Xenosystems Fragments*
Oswald Spengler: The Decline of the West vol. I* 
- Pierre Klossowski: The Monster
- Quentin Meillasoux: After Finitude - An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency
- Reza Negarestani: Intelligence and Spirit
Blogs
Cybertrop(h)ic: Manifesto for a Negative Democracy - Cybertrop(h)ic: Vulvocosmic Dissolution: Queerness, Feminism & Accelerationism
- Cybertrop(h)ic: Order but not Design: Friedrich Hayek & Cybernetics
- Cybertrop(h)ic: Waves, Spirals, & Amphibian Lemurs: Nick Land on Time
- Cybertrop(h)ic: No Exit: Debra Granik’s Leave No Trace
- Cybertrop(h)ic: Post-liberals & Meta-liberals: Towards an Exit-Oriented Politics
- Cybertrop(h)ic: Philosophy as Adventure: Land’s Libidinal Materialism
- Cybertrop(h)ic: The Sea Herself Fashions the Boats: Agency & Technology
- Cybertrop(h)ic: On Nick Land: The Weird Libertarian
The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: Hyper-Chaos, Thermospasm and Aion: On Temporal Philosophies of Meillasoux, Land and Deleuze - The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: The Necrophilic World: Death-Drive, Capitalism and our Posthuman Future
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: The Horror of Capitalism: Consuming the Body of God
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: Nietzsche the ‘I’ as a Construction of Thinking
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: The Curse of the Sun: Libidinal Materialism as the Composition of the Universe
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: Nick Land: Libidinal Materialism vs Physicalism
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: Libidinal Materialism: Nick Land’s Philosophy of Desire
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: Georges Bataille, Nick Land: Base Materialism, Aberrant Thought and The Archontes
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: The Hedonic Imperative: The Seduction of Hypercapitalism
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: The Violence of Capitalism
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: Sacred Violence: The Hyperstitional Order of Capitalism
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: Semiocapitalism and the Neoliberal Self
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: Base Materialism and the Philosophy of Hazard
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: Smart Cities and Dark Neoliberalism
- The Dark Fantastic Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts: Neorational Madness: Reza Negarestani and the New Society of Mind
Gray Mirror: A brief explanation of the Cathedral
Vast Abrupt: Alt Economy of Inner Night 
- Vast Abrupt: Catastrophic Astrology
- Vast Abrupt: Fanged Poetics: A Preliminary Notes on Dark Conceptualism
- Vast Abrupt: Determination and World Possession
- Vast Abrupt: Ideology, Intelligence, and Capital: An Interview with Nick Land
- Vast Abrupt: Time War // Briefing for Neolemurian Agents
- Vast Abrupt: A Brief Putting in Perspective of Decadence and of Several Minoritarian Battles To Be Waged
- Vast Abrupt: Alien Capital
Relationships
The Cathedral
Owfism - Changed in the right direction. I agree with a lot of what you represent. While your humanism isn't really to my taste and I find your recent embrace of authoritarian tendencies concerning, I have nothing else to complain about.
- The Human is something to overcome for liberalism to proceed. You're very tame, but you are a friend to the Cathedral.
The Faithful
Neo-Glencoeism - This sounds eerily familiar with what I believed in before learning more about political theory and philosophy. In any case, while I understand the reasons why one would opt for technocratic power, one should still remember experts are not free of biases or echo-chamber effects. Oligarchy is a problematic thing that emerges often on its own, even in democratic structures by the nature of organization itself. That's why its systemic deconstruction accompanying its reinforcing tendency is crucial for keeping up society's creative potential. In anyway though I think we can find some common ground.
BERNHEism - We do agree on many things I guess. Your disregard for humanistic ideas of morality is something I surely respect, post-humanism is based and I at least partially agree with your economics, even if not necessarily because of the same reasons. Ultranationalism is a major setback though. The Cathedral, while understanding the need for autonomy and self-organization cannot tolerate such particularism. The fate of all nations is to meltdown in the growing civilizational system. At least you seem to understand the impossibility of top-down control of cultures though. Your state-centric totalitarianism is also something I find rather counter-productive. A mixed bag for sure, but I think we could get along, especially since in the end you support Cathedral's progress in practice.
Duck-Citizen - Progress and regress are subjective, yes, but we can determine an emerging direction of civilization that is born from its dynamics. It is not progress by any human notions of morality or "betterment" but it is a direction capitalism takes I believe. By no means it is an "ontological" inherent progress either but rather a vector that arises from dynamics and interactions of forces making up civilization. Hyperstition bringing itself into reality. I just align myself with it. In any case we have some common influences, and took different conclusions from them somewhat but I think we can come to some agreements.
- While I don't have anything against co-op businesses, I don't think forcing them is that good of an idea, at least you seem to know socialism is not by any means an escape from capital. You're a humanist also but a liberal one and I can't hate a fellow liberal. Especially when they support Cathedral's globalistic endavours.
The Respectable Outsiders
Neo-Optimateism - Most fascinating fellow. While I'm rather strongly skeptical of this Neo-Senate's potential to replace Cathedral as a framework I can't say you didn't produce something interesting. And despite our differences we seem to agree on a lot of theoretical points at least.
Tiberius Thought - Every day you stray further from the light. We disagree on a lot obviously. Totalitarianism, ultranationalism, weird pseudo-monarchism but I have to give you that you're not boring by any means, and you are generally self-aware of the fact that Cathedral cannot really be realistically overcome.
Accursed Biological Anarchism - We're fundamentally opposed but I must say the idea of countering hyper-racism with enabling biological hyper-diversity through common access to genetic modification is something I really like. And you obviously know your stuff when it comes to theory.
HelloThere314ism - Obviously an intellectual. While I'm neither a supporter of egoism nor anarchism, I always respect those who, unlike most of the orthodox left, can see that the system they oppose is more complex than it seems. While I don't think we'd agree on the future of society, at least you're interesting, and you're also deleuzian so that's pretty based.
07 - Another deleuzian. I feel like we agree on a lot when it comes to "how things are", there are surely some differences but I think it's the differences in our characters that make us take those facts and draw different conclusions. Anyway, another one I can respect but not really agree with.
Ultroneism - There's a lot I can disagree with here, and a good bunch I could agree with. Above all though it's most impressive how many fascinating ideas you put here. (also thanks for your input on my interdividualism. I would actually agree that the geist can't be simply boiled down to its elements but I must insist that its nature is found exactly in the process of communication and flux between those elements)
Arthurwp Thought - While I am no communist, we share a lot of our influences and it's always nice to see another Deleuzoguattarian here.
Glorified Communism - This is really interesting. Pursuit of glory on a universal level is a rather admirable goal, even if I do not believe it achievable through communist means, if they are even possible at all. It is not against capital that the peak of decadence is to be achieved but only through its un-exitable frames. Wasteful spaces sustained by and for the sake of dynamics of exchange and capital reproduction. Such is the terrifying power of this system that it can even utilize what does not have a utility for its consuming participators. And terror, my friend, is an indispensable part of all things sublime.
Cyberdelic Egoism - Run, strike, punch, kick, scream, shift and change. You will find no exits here. With every step towards it, the Cathedral shifts its corridors again. It adapts. It has its own version of collage. But struggle still, that's what the game is about. How else would it debugg itself if it didn't go through any trials? The system is sado-masochistic, so the hacketariat is welcome to join in, it will make a good use of them.
- Market Socialism is the only way to make socialism somewhat functional, though I still question its effectiveness. But you’re pretty alright overall. What’s not to love about space, right?
Fungal Anarchism - We might be in opposition but it's always interesting to see a leftist that goes beyond basic orthodoxy.-
- Like many others you falsely hold onto belief of eventual escape from Capital. You are somewhat conscious about the nature of the spectacle though and that's respectable. Plus you appreciate Fisher's analysis. - Become an Accelerationist already -.
The Neutral
- Socialist, humanist and supports the version of globalism too dependent on assumptions of good will rather than intense interconnectivity. At least you believe in rule of law. Harmless but not really interesting or sympathethic.
Rigby Thought - A capitalist conservative is in many ways nothing more than loyal opposition for liberalism. But that's good. Perhaps unknowingly but you do support a system that will inevitably reconstruct the present no matter the conservation attempts. B̸̰̈́é̸̮͓ ̷͈̃n̶̩̼̋̚o̵̤͔̅t̷̗̻̑̂ ̷̨̲̇̇ȃ̷͍f̴̧͂͒͜r̷̡̽ȧ̵̟̥̕ĭ̷̛͈̱d̷̠͗̇͜, you should embrace it. You already accept some trends that not long ago were or still are seen as "progressive". You should let go of religious moralism as well.
Neo-Levithianism - To first answer your question: "I" will not be stopping anything. The Cathedral and Capital might work through me and other people to prevent it's potential death but I as a single person don't make systems, they are entities fueled by forces far beyond me. I do not believe though that the Cathedral will disappear in a new status quo, its resilience lies in its malleability and as we speed into the future it will create a new instance of itself more fitting for the coming netocratic age. Now going back to you, honestly it's hard to say what you're trying to convey on the one hand you seem to support the Cathedral's endeavors because you see them as transitional stages towards anarchism, on the other I believe you mischaracterize it greatly. The emergent world government once integrated will not be any kind of totalitarian world government I think. Instead the entanglement and interdependence of world's institutions and markets will become so intense we shall find ourselves on a planet with a global state but without a global state, nobody will be ruling from above, the system will just handle itself as a network.
Temujin Leeism - Gift economy won't allow you to escape capital, it will emerge again, it's inevitable that desire to exchange will at some point materialize itself as a technological object of exchange and before long capital accumulation will kick in again. Anti-orthodoxy is good though, no matter from which side you're coming from.-
- For someone anti-humanist you sure seem to talk a lot about human condition. This colossus theory thing also is seeped in that. Humans do not have any instincts of the Overman for the Overman cannot be human, if it was human it could not rise above human animalistic nature. The lot of man is decadence. Also this rejection of consumerism is just silly. Not to mention impossible to enforce with all the freedom and power you would give to Capital, no matter how formally "totalitarian" the state tries to be. And I really doubt regressive tax is gonna produce the results you expect. I like some of your vibes though. Cruci-fiction sounds fire.
The Heathens
Polianism - No one has ever died from contradictions my friend, but I encourage you to try your best in fighting the Cathedral with them.
Craniocommunization - I absolutely disagree with almost everything you're saying, from communism to moralism and christianity. And yet bafflingly I find myself unable to hate it. But I don't think we could come to common ground on anything, whether it be ontology or politics.
Schumacherianism
- I always find ruralist capitalists rather peculiar. Capital demands its reproduction and with it it demands structures enabling such exponential growth. There's nobody running the world from the shadows either, we are subjects not to men but abstract and alien systems that sprang from us but exist beyond us. But I don't think that would change much in your opposition to what I align with. Still you are a Capitalist so that's some plus. And for your information... yes All Tomorrows is great.
Meowxism - Marxism-Leninism is a failed idea the supporters of which I mostly find rather ridiculous. Revolutionary progressivism and futurism ain't bad though, albeit I disagree with you about sex work.
The Boring
New Model Of Cheesenism - Teenage dictator fantasy. There's not much to comment on.
Forest Hermitism - Mhmmm...
The Laughable
User:Khomeinism - Of course I see them. Ȉ̷̯̯̯̯͝ ̸̹̜̓̀͊s̵̢̝̘̎͐͊͋ͅę̷̼̭̇ͅe̸͕͇͐͌̑͝ ̵̭͌̇́́t̷̲͔̦͌̎̓h̵̩̖͛͝͝ͅë̵̪͚̌m̴͉͕̫̉ ̸̝͎̈́̅͊̕å̷̮l̶̫͖͗͂ḽ̷̋͊͌̕. How long it will last? O̵̱̐͋͌̅u̷͎̤͕̍̎͊̽r̷͉̙̟͝ ̴̡̬̫͗̑͑b̷͖͖̫̈́̔e̴̟̞͑l̷̟͉̈̈́l̷̨̢̬͕̉̐̍s̷̡̐̉͆ ̵̳̫̪̱̓s̴̺̎̓̕͠ĭ̸̬̖͎̹͑̀͘n̸̗̪̍̾̽g̵̲̕ ̸̛̝̾̂f̵̪͓̈́͑͛ŏ̸̘̩̣́r̷͍̲̉e̵̢̟͎͇̚v̸̫̌͆̀̃ẽ̸͚ř̶͙̱̭̇ͅ!
Implianium - Most of it is utter nonsense. Maybe it's an unfunny joke, maybe genuine. I don't think I care.
The Cathedral
WIP
The Faithful
WIP
The Respectable Outsiders
WIP
The Neutral
WIP
The Heathens
WIP
The Boring
WIP
The Laughable
WIPInformation
MBTI
INTJ-A, "Assertive Architect"
Enneagram
5w4, "Philosopher"
Comments
User:Khomeinism - Hello, I added you, if possible, you can add me too.
User:Khomeinism - Of course. I didn't see you there, usually new comments should go on the bottom.
- - Sorry for putting it here, I didn't know.
Implianium - Add me
- - ok
HelloThere314 - Add me?
- - Done, albeit since most of your page is under re-construction I can't comment on too much.
Glencoe- based add me
- - Sure, add me too
Glencoe- done
Owfism - add me to relations?
- - alright, add me too.
Braun Spencer Thought - Add me?
- - sure
.png){kind=small}
New Model Of Cheesenism-add me
- - alright
Owfism - re-add me? I changed my ideology
- - Very well
BERNHEism - Add me?
- - Alright
Duck-Citizen - Add me?
- - Sure
Owfism - I changed my ideology
- - Ok, add me too
Rigby Thought - Add me?
- - Very well
Serbian Socialism Don't add me
- - I don't even know who you are
Arthurwp - Add me?
- - Alright
Add me (Accursed Biological Anarchism)
- - Welp you left the wiki before I could respond but I will add you anyway
Neo-Glencoeism- add me
- - Sure
Salvationism - Add me?
- - Alright
- Can you add me?
- - Of course
Craniocommunization - i updated my ideology m8 if you could update me pls pray emoji
- - Alright
Glorified Communism Add me. Note that I wouldn't describe myself as deleuzoguattarian, I just find their ideas quite interesting.
- - Very well.
Cyberdelic Egoism - would you be interested in joining the xenosphere?
- - Sure, why not
- Add me fellow liberty lover?
- - Sure
- Add me?
- - Alright
- It’s interesting, you say that bafflingly you cannot hate my ideology, I wonder why? What is redeemable of me in your eyes, beholder of dark?
- - It's not boring, even if I disagree with it completely, for that creative value alone I cannot completely condemn it. Being uninteresting is the greatest of all sins.
- Add me, i'll add you when i get the time.
- - Alright
Schumacherianism
- you on some All Tomorrows typa shit istg [ add me :) ]
- - Ok
Neo-Levithianism - Beautiful,you truly deserve the title of Neo-Landian I approve.But how will you stop the creation of a new status quo with further technological progress and new ideas,all else is fine.Add me?
- - Alright
Meowxism - add me. what do u think of freud, the anti-stalin french maoists, dugin, and evola?
- - Sure. Now to answer the question: The father of psychoanalysis is one of major albeit mostly indirect influences on me, mainly due to his work on the death-drive, it's a shame he was so stubborn when it came to critique of his ideas though. Badiou is the only member of that group I'm familiar with I think and I'm not particularly fond of them though I'm not fond of stalinists or maoists in general. Dugin might be one of the most fascinating reactionaries out there, he's smuggling anthropocentrism and essentialism into his framework while using postmodern ideas to his advantage at pushing ideological agenda. Given his opinions about liberalism and accelerationism connection beliefs like mine might be one the closest things to what he would consider as the end-point of western thought he opposes. I've been trying to familiarize myself with Evola's work beyond general summaries but given how oppositional we are, trying to engage with his texts feels like hitting a wall. From what I got to this point I can just say I don't like the guy
Temujin Leeism - add me, also what's your opinion on 
Mark Fisher.
- - Alright. And to answer your question, I think his analysis of Capitalist Realism is quite remarkable and significant to understand the dynamics of modern capitalist society but I think his hopes of transcending capital are a lost cause.
- - thx for sharing your thoughts.
- add me my technological brother...
- - I see you have changed views since you wrote this here. Sorry for taking so long. I guess I’ll just write about the new one.
- Hey man, just wanted to ask you if you could add a reading list to your page - I would love to know which books influenced you the most!
- - To be honest with you, my lazy ass postponed writing down this list as much as possible but here you go. This is mostly from memory so I might add more to it if I remember it later
Meowxism - thoughts on the cultural marxism, postmodernism, and the critical race theory=critical theory conspiracy theories?
- - Rather silly, sometimes can be funny, sometimes quite obnoxious. The biggest problem with them though is how they breed anti-intellectualism in general.
- add me pls
- - Alright
Fungal Anarchism - Hiya, add me?
- - Sure
Schumacherianism (
/
/
/
/
) - hello! i did big redo of page, am not neolud anymore, can u add me agin? Thanks! :D
- Can ue add me pls.