Submitted by AnarcheAmor in AskRaddle

Just saw some videos by a youtuber named Grej. He does something similar to Jreg but instead of radical political ideologies and the promotion of centricide, he focuses on extreme philosophies and promotes realicide, or the death of realist philosophies.

This opened up a new world to me as I've never heard of half of those philosophies in anything outside of fiction. For example, I never knew Darwinism was ever taken as an ideology instead of just an approach to evolutionary science, and I thought IngSoc was just something made up by Orwell, I never would have guessed that people would have taken it seriously.

There's a whole slew of them and once you put them all into scale with the political compass, the "radical" ideologies like AnCom, AuthCom, even fascism, look really close to center (which is kinda sobering to think about). For example, Anarchism as we know it is super centrist compared to the likes of Soulism, Meta-Anarchy, and Chaosism. Fascism, as we know it, is a puppy dog compared to IngSoc, Censor Authoritarianism, and Darwinism.

I found myself being attracted to Soulism, the idea that you can apply anarchism to everything including the laws of physics, and Meta-Anarchy which is anarchism applied to anarchism. So I see myself as a Meta-Anarchic Soulist in terms of off-compass politics.

What about you guys?

4

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Bezotcovschina wrote

I don't care about anything related to mapping ideas on 2D plane. It can be funny, I suppose, like when I was a kid, children were obsessed with making and sharing (pre-internet kind of sharing) silly personality tests. It was funny for what it was, but it was a shitty way to really know a person.

Now, all of this political compass things is a very shallow pond where a lot of people trying to find their identity for the pure sake of just find one and stick to it.

5

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

I guess that's kinda the point of the off compasses, you can't fit them into the compass because their concerns can't fit into just 2 dimensions.

3

CaptainACAB wrote

This opened up a new world to me as I've never heard of half of those philosophies in anything outside of fiction.

Because most of them are fictional.

I never knew Darwinism was ever taken as an ideology instead of just an approach to evolutionary science.

Social Darwinism is just the misinterpretation of Darwin's theory of evolution and the attempt to apply it to human society; it's just meritocracy on steroids and the only people who unironically believe in it are either the beneficiaries of nepotism, people trying to morally justify exploitation, and "misery builds character" types.

I thought IngSoc was just something made up by Orwell, I never would have guessed that people would have taken it seriously.

It is. The people adopting it as an actual ideology are probably just LARPing.

Hell, most of the entries on the off the compass category on the compball wiki outright say that most of them are fictional and have no foundation in real life political movements.

They're either the fusion of two different (often heavily simplified) ideologies or just taking a simple idea to its logical conclusion for the sake of entertainment and memery; not something to take seriously.

5

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

I should probably clarify that I knew of Social Darwinism as a justification for exploitation. What I didn't know was that people openly believed murder should be legal to kill the weak and create a stronger gene pool. I guess I just kinda forgot about the "soft" social Darwinism for a second when talking about the full on, edgy, might makes right version.

3

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

What I didn't know was that people openly believed murder should be legal to kill the weak and create a stronger gene pool.

Yeah, Nazis and Eugenicists exist :P

Social Darwinism still isn't a political ideology; no one openly advocating killing off "the weak" is calling themselves a Social Darwinist, they're either calling themselves Eugenicists or are part of some White Supremacist prison gang.

EDIT: Keep in mind that Jreg uses Anarcho-Communism, "Anarcho"-Capitalism, Nazism, And Marxist-Leninism as the physical embodiments (the be all end all) of each political quadrant for the sake of satire, so anything that goes farther beyond those would be considered "off-compass".

Expanding beyond those ideologies would put Social Darwinism and IngSoc in the authright and authleft respectively.

5

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

Eugenicists and Nazis only think murder should be legal when targeted against a select group of people, the Darwinists I'm referring to think murder should be legal as long as it is targetted against everyone. They don't like racism because it protects the weak of the aggressing race and if your eugenics isn't involving every person then it's trash. Heck, these dudes are pretty anarchist up until the point that the "strong" has proven their ability to force their will on others, otherwise they don't like states, government, or authority because those things, again, protect the weak.

3

CaptainACAB wrote

Eugenicists and Nazis only think murder should be legal when targeted against a select group of people

Nazis would definitely kill "weak" white children, they hate every white that rejects their ideology just as much as they hate non-whites. You think they didn't "euthanize" so-called "Aryans" with disabilities? Come on, a cursory glance would tell you that they did.

Eugenicists are ableist by definition; they'd absolutely sterilize or murder people in their in-group with disabilities.

They don't like racism because it protects the weak of the aggressing race and if your eugenics isn't involving every person then it's trash.

Nazis just assume that "weakness" is the default mode of existence for "non-Aryans". They don't disregard the notion that "Aryans" can be "weak".

Eugenicists promote "improved genetic quality" which has historically been taken up by racists, but doesn't necessarily have to be by definition. Social Darwinists promote "survival of the fittest" which also doesn't mean that they're racist by definition, but historically, many racial supremacists have embraced Social Darwinism.

Heck, these dudes are pretty anarchist up until the point that the "strong" has proven their ability to force their will on others, otherwise they don't like states, government, or authority because those things, again, protect the weak.

If you're willing to also call AnCaps "pretty anarchist" for the exact same reason, sure. How many of self-identifying Social Darwinists have you actually talked to?

5

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

Question: what are we disagreeing on? Nothing you're saying is incorrect or wrong but I think you think that I'm denying that Fascists are Social Darwinists. I'm not because I'm not talking about Social Darwinism. I'm talking about Darwinism without adjectives, "true" Darwinism as it were.

These people don't believe that weakness is an inherent trait that can be erased but rather a trait proven by the fact that you're dead. It doesn't matter that you're poor or disabled, it just doesn't help your chances that you are. Eugenicists and Nazis are weak to Darwinists because their Social Darwinism is just some softcore perversion of real Darwinism to them. The only people who Darwinists respect are Cult Darwinists because they literally worship Darwinist principles and will do anything to see them through.

And the "pretty Anarchist" bit was because, yeah, they're pretty Anarchist compared to Nazis. Their recognition of authority is conditional: if you're strong enough to rule then you have the right to do so for as long as you maintain that strength but if it can be contested then contested it shall be. I'm not saying that they are anarchist because they're just conditional archists. And yes I've talked to Social Darwinists before, the ideology isn't lost on me but, again, I think we're talking about two different things.

2

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

Question: what are we disagreeing on?

Nothing until you said that Social Darwinists were "pretty anarchist" (I'll get to that later), I'm just criticizing Social Darwinists.

I'm not because I'm not talking about Social Darwinism. I'm talking about Darwinism without adjectives, "true" Darwinism as it were.

There is no real distinction to make there; "Social" Darwinism is just trying to apply the misinterpretation of "survival of the fittest" to human society, Darwinism is just the scientific theory of natural selection and evolution. What you're calling Darwinism is literally just Social Darwinism; the people calling themselves Darwinists just want to distance themselves from the label, but there's no significant difference there; it's a split between Anti-government Social Darwinists and statist Social Darwinists. Same end goals and ideals, different means of achieving them.

These people don't believe that weakness is an inherent trait that can be erased but rather a trait proven by the fact that you're dead[...]

I'm aware of what they believe. I don't buy the idea of them claiming that they aren't bigoted makes them "more Anarchist" than Nazis. And deeming the dead "weak" means nothing, because death is unavoidable and very much out of human control. Applying human concepts like "Strength" or "weakness" to a universal concept like "death" is fallacious.

And the "pretty Anarchist" bit was because, yeah, they're pretty Anarchist compared to Nazis.

They're every bit as authoritative and submissive as Nazis and are about as anarchist as Nazis are. There's nothing anarchist about being submissive or permissive of power and authority; the only defense that they have is that they "don't see color or creed, only strength" and means fuck all to me. Their "ideology" still reifies power, is an incoherent mess that would descend into fascism if some strongman managed to gain enough power and install a state, and it's still just a corruption of a scientific theory.

TLDR; I don't disagree with you, I just disagree with the haunted mess of an "ideology" of Social Darwinism.

3

tabby wrote

I watched a few minutes of a couple Grej videos, and either I don't have the proper context to understand what he's talking about, or it's complete pseudo-intellectual nonsense (and I'm leaning toward the latter).

4

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

To put it one way, the point of an off-compass belief is to be the extremes of what one can find reasonable, practical, and applicable. To see it as pseudo-intellectual would be missing the point because some of these just say fuck all to intelligibility. Take Senatorialism for example, which exists as a meme belief with a name but no definition, or Transhumanist Egoist Theocratic Imperialism is basically just Egotheism but in the future, or Chaosism which (to summarize in a single sentence) says that trying to frame reality into something intelligible is a hierarchical act so to frame it in anything intellectual would be wrong. However some just exist as extensions of the extremes and others have already happened. Most of the Anarchist off compasses are just anarchism but with more anarchism and then there are cult off-compasses which, from what I can tell, are the only off-compasses to have been put into practice.

So Grej's stuff seems to be just parodizing the off-compasses in the way Jreg does the compass extremes.

4

tabby wrote (edited )

Maybe pseudo-intellectual was the wrong word. Mental masturbation? (Not saying it's necessarily bad.)

4

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

Oh yeah, if that's the case, most definitely! I am pretty sure Chaosists have mental sex machines and whoever came up with THETI was on some type of ecstasy.

2

TinyOrangeTurtle wrote

its a funny meme thing. but we should not be taken as anything more. they devalue polotics as a whole if taken seriously

4

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

That's kinda part of why I brought it up. If you haven't drank the koolaid like I have and started unironically thinking that at least one of these has a point to it, it's definitely a funny little thought experiment into what type of fuckshit is out there. My favorites so far are the futurist off-compasses, THETI, Hive Mind, and Post-Humanism, because of fucking course the only off-compasses that deal with technologism and futurism end in the erasure of individual human thought and existence. Compare this to anticiv's only singular off-compass: Primalism, which is far less probable and way more preferable.

2

raindropq wrote

how is your MAS not anti-civ ?

2

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

It isn't necessarily so. It isn't pro-civ either. Whether what matters is your relationship to the concept of civilization.

So, in a conversation, the AntiCivist would layout his critique and reasons for wanting to abolish civilization but the Soulist and Meta- Anarchist would be concerned about the nature of the critique. The Soulist would be concerned with the ability to consent to civilization while the Meta Anarchist fears that your critique is starting from the point of hierarchy.

The Soulist says that civilization is a shitshow but ultimately what matters is their personal desires and agency when dealing with said shitshow. If they can opt out or in at their leisure then they are fine. The Meta Anarchist says that concept of civilization as we know it has been built off of hierarchy so the trick here is to start from a place of anarchy. Would the critiques hold up the same?

To explain further, the point of Meta Anarchist thought is to not think hierarchy as the status quo and anarchy as its disruption but the opposite: Anarchy is the status quo and hierarchy is the disruption. So the Meta never sees something as inherently hierarchical and believes that all things can be made anarchical. So if the AntiCiv perspective is that civilization is inherently hierarchical and must be abolished, the Meta objects to that way of thinking outright.

The AntiCiv may scratch their head at this a bit but don't get it twisted, Meta just doesn't like the logic of your critique but ultimately doesn't think you're wrong. It's a rather arbitrary criticism for your purposes but an insight I say any anarchist should consider. Also, don't think that they are neutral in this, Meta Anarchism and Soulism are very much in love with disorganization so they definitely aren't opposed to destabilizing civilization as we know it but Meta is also in love with different forms of organizing so civilization isn't completely off the table for it.

All in all, for me, I don't want to abolish civilization for the sake of its erasure but rather for the sake of changing its relationship to me and ultimately changing the very logic that birthed it. I'm AntiCiv for as long as civilization is anti-me.

3

thelegendarybirdmonster wrote

Can you explain those two ideology in more than one sentence?

3

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

What two?

3

thelegendarybirdmonster wrote

the two you're interested in.

3

AnarcheAmor OP wrote (edited )

Oh! Well, Soulism is anarchism applied to your very existence. That is, to say, it is the process of thinking of hierarchy as being built into reality and to seek to abolish these hierarchies. The meme joke is that Soulists want to abolish gravity but the serious take is that we have a hierarchical relationship with the universal rules that govern our motion. You can't just say no to gravity and fly as you wish. Of course, this seems ridiculous because gravity isn't some conscious entity, it's a product of the very logic of our universe's space and time but the Soulist says that you are a conscious entity, one that can imagine and fathom a world without gravity so why be subject to it? Basically, this is an exercise in pushing anarchism to its limits by asking the question of what does and doesn't count as a hierarchy and if the point of anarchy is to abolish hierarchy then what must we make of the parts of our lives where abolition seems impossible or just outright illogical? The Soulist defies any notion of impossibility or irrationality and embraces the struggle as the point of anarchy is to better society through constantly challenging hierarchy so to must it be the point of anarchy to better oneself and the bettering of self leads to a better society. So if you can imagine a world without gravity, seek it, such that you have found yourself better for it.

But the Meta-Anarchist has an objection. Should it be right to force yourself on to anything? Sure, you can say that gravity was "forced on you" but either way why force yourself on it? Meta-Anarchism is about anarchism as it is applied to anarchism which seems weird, right? Anarchism should be inherently anarchic but Meta-Anarchists don't believe so. Metas see hierarchy as being built into anarchist logic and practice and wants abolish that outright by seeing the structures of all reality differently. They instead believe that anarchism should be seen as the starting perspective of how we view all structures- that anarchism built into the fabric of reality. So they say to the Soulist that to see hierarchy in everything is misguided and can breed the hierarchy that they so oppose.

However, I see no contradiction here. Soulism seeks to form the type of relationships that Meta Anarchy desires to already be seen so if Meta Anarchy is a change in our logic, then Soulism is thay change put into practice by focusing on the self and how that self relates to everything.

4

stealThaInternet wrote (edited )

Well I feel that their is definitely different aspects of anarchy thought, I think that most people are interested in the obvious anarchism. denouncement of leaders, bosses, and gods authority. but this is just the most visible and probably one of the more controversial aspects of anarchy, in the human realm.

I think that anarchism also applies to interactions of groups of people with singular people. The idea that a group of people can have the ability to influence a single person is still a form of authority. And while the group recognizes that they are influencing the will of that single person, they might not recognize that they are acting in a position of authority and thus are ruling that one person.

There is also the aspect of humans relationship with non-human world (or nature). How do we treat the earth as if we do not make its rules? How do we drink water without allowing ourselves to control it? We should eat a plant, animal, earth, anything and recognize that it is not just what we need to live, but it is actually is our life. I think being able to reconnect our self to nature (as in the world outside ourselves) must happen to dissolve our authority over nature.

I could go on and on about the different aspects of anarchy that everyone (myself included) are not ready to hear or unable to comprehend at this moment, but I really can't.

But to answer your thought about the compass theory. Well I only ever use the north star as a guide, but I guess that doesnt work in the southern hemisphere, so idk.

compasses willl stop working when your close to a powerful magnet that fucks it all up. so never trust a compass, find your own path.

1

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

Indeed, indeed, really interesting thoughts. I really like your water example.

2