If it’s a political philosophy, then what political points is it trying to make? Because most of the concrete applications of this ideology the manifesto makes are basically that it treats marginalized groups better. And it even fails at that:

Soulism can help us win ideological battles with transphobes who would do our trans friends harm, as well. No matter what assertions they make, we can simply choose to recognise them as not real. Whatever truth lies in their claims is subjective, and it is our choice whether to accept it. Gender, like consensus reality, is a social construct. We have the power of choice over our experience of gender, and this example to others is powerful.

This is honestly delusional. Pretending the transphobes bigotry isn’t real doesn’t help at all, they can still go ahead and harm trans folks in the reality they live in. I don’t think that sticking your head in the sand is the solution to this.

“Magic is observable phenomena caused by things that aren’t real.”

It follows that transphobic hate crimes are magic. This entire section just feels pointless, I just skimmed that paragraph about wizards and dungeons and dragons, and when I read that financial transactions are magic I just stopped reading because I felt like I was wasting my time.

In my understanding, most of the examples given in the manifesto essentially boil down to “I will change my behavior and opinions, because I believe it is the right thing to do”. The whole “reality isn’t real” and “magic exists” stuff around this are just so confusing, because it is not at all clear how it relates to the examples. The beginning feels more like a rant or ramble about history and metaphysics.

The first conclusion, then, is obvious: Take power over reality for ourselves. Choose kindness, and spread kindness into the values of everyone you meet. Believe in a kind reality, and science will show you that same kindness. This is how you create a better reality.

This is equivalent to stating “be nice”; a request that clearly does not work. All the other stuff in that text about the realities and perception is just noise that distracts from the already very sparse points it’s trying to make. I get the feeling that solipsism is a huge inspiration for this ideology. The main issue with solipsism is that it draws no useful conclusions from its main argument. If there is nothing I can extract from solipsism to act on, then it is pointless to advocate for it. Obviously it cannot be disproven, but it also cannot be explicitly proven