I agree that some of those things are undesirable, while others are very good things for our society (PCs, radio, music, art, unity, freedom, me...). Anyhow, the best way to make your ideas understood is not to just yell FUCK EVERYTHING, but rather to explain why you disagree with something. Also, you should be promoting something else instead. Simple rejection of Establishment values won't make Establishment values go away; we need to replace them with something else. If you make an ideology of negatives, only condemning things but never approving of them, nobody will take you seriously since you have not illustrated your idea of how things might be better than they are now.

For example, the idea "FUCK PACIFISM" might be more convincingly construed as "I disagree with the ideology of pacifism because it rejects the notion of violence as a means of self-defense, and if I never practice self-defense I could die or be forced to submit to the will of someone who is willing to use violence." Some of your other arguments, however, are too vague to be made into a logical statement (like "FUCK IT" and "FUCK YOU"), while some would be quickly demolished if you tried to seriously defend them in a debate. For instance, what's wrong with unity and freedom? And how can you say FUCK FREEDOM and FUCK AUTHORITY? Only authority can deny someone of freedom, therefore without freedom you necessarily have authority.