EGOISM VS. MODERNITY: Welsh’s Dialectical Stirner

images.dufdgckduckgo.com

Since its publication in 1844, Max Stirner’s book Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum (entitled The Ego and Its (or His) Own in the currently available English editions[1]) has rarely been dealt with on its own terms. When not simply suppressed, it has been misrepresented or used as a foil to promote agendas foreign to it. Alfredo Bonanno described it well in his book Max Stirner when he says, “The first duty toward Stirner: incomprehension.” Certainly, the few books written about Stirner and his ideas in English in the past century have reflect this lack of even a minimal understanding of what Stirner was doing. This is what makes John F. Welsh’s book distinctive.

I consider much of the “incomprehension” in the face of Stirner’s book to be a choice made by his various critics and commentators. It is true that Stirner’s thinking is difficult, but not in the sense of being hard to understand—and in his masterwork, Stirner presents it in a clear, even blunt, language. Rather its difficulty lies in the fact that it removes every abstract ground of certainty from beneath our feet, leaving us to rely only on ourselves. This is why he begins and ends the book with the cry: “I have set my cause upon nothing.”[2] And very few want to face this prospect of total self-responsibility. Welsh seems to be one of those few, and this makes his book worth reading. Unlike all of Stirner’s critics whose works I have been able to read and most of his defenders as well, Welsh comes to Stirner with no obvious preconceptions about what Stirner was saying. Instead he attempts to understand what Stirner’s project actually was and how it might be useful to us now. The flaws in Welsh’s understanding relate to the most difficult aspects of Stirner’s thinking, his attempts to use language to point to the inconceivable, the unspeakable unique, and to the equally non-conceptual union of egoists. I will go into this more later. Continue reading

Mexico – Explosive-Incendiary Sabotage of Police Vehicles in Ecatepec

burned-police-truck-mexico-980x600-768x470
“The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction”
W. Blake
Before dawn on September 13, at 3:30am, two explosive-incendiary devices were placed on two police vehicles at a police substation located in the Rio de Luz neighborhood in Ecatepec de Morelos, State of Mexico. Blah, blah, blah, why ya reading if ya already know?
We believe that the spectacle of the supposed “anarchist movement in Mexico” is one too focused on aesthetics, narcissism, posing and simulation and not dedicated enough to assuming the role of material war against all existent, a lot of noise and little action, we know that there are completely different ways of understanding reality and no moral authority exists with which one can judge another, however, we have a few things to say:
1.-The solemn formality and messianic character of many “anarchist” discourses cause little more than laughter, as they apparently brag about a great commitment to the “cause” but little desire to risk daily comforts, which results in mediocre actions that only stroke the ego, gaining attention without dealing a forceful blow to the system.
2.-For us, violence can and should be demystified and made commonplace, made available to any individuality, without turning to professionalism or revolutionary heroism. We don’t identify with the figure of the urban guerilla, the anonymous avenger, etc.
3.-Utopia and revolution interest us little. We want revenge. We have no program or ideology, we just have our guts, our delusions, selfish desires, whims, tantrums, etc.
4.-We don’t want to contribute to mediocrity by thinking that one simple sabotage is a blow for the colossal machinery that kills us daily. We know that the losses we caused are minimal in comparison with the infinity of live annihilated by this shitty normality we live in.
5.-Even less so do we give credit to the energy wasted on events, shows, parties and stupidities that only reinforce the pathetic egos of the participants and alleviate the guilt of their organizations. We know that many of these events are done in good faith with the aim of raising funds for this or that project, for compañerxs in prison, etc. However, to direct all energy on these matters, simulating and alluding to a fictitious war against the system, leaving everything in theory, words, chatter, songs and partying is what busts our ovaries/balls, our vengeance is not “to be happy”, our vengeance is material and relatively immediate, there is no hope for better or “more favorable” times.
6.-To hell with the masses.
7.-We want to encourage the crew to arm themselves and have fun carrying out their own attacks in their daily lives, in their neighborhood, or wherever. We mock the formalities and solemnities that only reinforce a fraudulent ego but cause no damage. They are therefore harmless.
8.-Well, quickly, we just wanted to laugh for a bit without so much “insurrectionary” chest thumping, without so much libertarian morality and solemnity, we made an unimportant joke, same as the supposed insurrection/war that the leftists, reds, anarchos, and other rebels claim to be carrying out.
9.-There is no other reason than now, we only “have” the immediate.
10.-To expand chaos, continue the crazy vandalizing, more action and less sitting on our ass.
In criminal energy!
PS: HEE-HEE HO-HO
Chichi Cell

Scotland, Edinburgh : Sabotage of construction machines and incendiary attack

We received and publish :

Inside the increasingly growing modernization in the already rampantly developed urbanization I feel my individuality to suffocate. The urban field in my eyes is an area of open prison. Inside it humans just exist, as pets of a god named Law separating their existence from any other form of life and environment. And those who don’t separate, in fact they still separate themselves, because they see themselves as regulators of ”wild” life. Desires have long ago been channeled in the sickness of consumerism concerning anything, from material things to the sphere of thought, where the poisons of the so many years of capitalism have been established in combination with the weakness of negating social roles and of every culture-prison, offspring of civilisation. The ”free life” is the ”beauty” of the choices of the urban field which incarnates the utmost characteristics of massification of the ideologemes of civilisation. This is where all rights have been transformed into the tomb of life. Though my desires seek the affirmation of life through experimentations of destructive deconstruction of theory and action.

This is why little before daybreak on 19/07/16 I headed towards a construction site with intention sabotage and destruction of property. Whichever companies are the same to me, wheels of civilisation and its procedures. After cutting the fences I severed a big amount of the cables of two excavators and the windows of another crane machine were painted black. Nihilistic symbols were also painted on the machines. Symbols that signify a procedure not a reification. There was intention for more destruction but because of the reason that I was possibly spotted from an opposite house I chose to bail out. Though the ideas still remain to come into effect.

On 12/08/16 I set an expensive sportscar on fire using the very simple method of placing firelighters under the fuel tank on top of the tire. This action is an expression of misanthropic feelings, generally but also specifically towards those who use the products of civilisation through the social logic of the spectacle. For the beauty of fire inside the darkness of the night. Against society itself and the reproduction of norms for adaption. Society is first of all a complex of ideological systems even conflicting between themselves and secondarily it is control and psychosomatic repression which spring up from the first and the individuality remains always a prisoner. Therefore attacks against society could not have a certain character. In no case I’m trying to justify my actions through a supposed universal value ideologicalized cause, these belong to others not me. My actions don’t have as starting point nor do they aim at politics, they are clearly actions of pleasure that begin from my personal values as a person. Egoistic nihilism is a tool not a product for consumers in the capitalist alienation, its aim is at expropriating the person from any universality and predetermined values with purpose the exposure of chaotic reality so as to destroy idealism and move towards the fulfillment of desire without imaginary chains or expectations.

I have to self-criticize myself here for some identifying ”identities” which I used in my previous communiques in claiming my actions, although I didn’t start this way. For me these were not reified identities and I think this is clear from my words, but I used them as an indicator generally nonetheless which would imply an imaginary uniform culture and myself an advocate of this, something that isn’t reflective of reality neither what I want. A mistake like this doesn’t offer anything besides the fact it can easily create new reification inside the civilised sewer we live in. So I dispose of these chains of language which are completely unnecessary if personal content is present. The name I use is not the attempt for the creation of a new fortress of ideas. I would never want to see the name undertaken by others (not that this is likely to happen, for many reasons), it represents only me because it simply is part of the content of my ego, not new reified idealistic propaganda for The Cause. Besides, even anonymity for me could as easily be another form of uniformity. What matters is the content, words in themselves are just trash, products of civilization. The cell falcon of chaos has been from the beginning an attempt of breaching the domestication inside the city, the unfolding of the direct anarchist experience that pays tribute to no prescriptions and the opening of possibilities for self-realization. The responsibility claims are an experiment of an attempt for interaction with other unique ones. A communique in itself is just a means inside ones own cause and not a ”complete and final” manifestation of the moment of the action or an end in itself. Always against every ideology no matter which name accompanies it but also all of their essentialist identities. I am not of those who draw directly from the images of authority and reproduce them with other mantle. All my communiques aim at the propulsion of theory and practise with starting point the self, anarchy as a vehicle, namely the situation that I negate even the physical authority over me and nihilism my weapon of choice, never leaving those to be dominated by ghosts no matter their name, always with the perception of chaotic pluralism in my mind into the war of all against all, which doesn’t confine me to care about compulsive predetermined unities neither a form of obligatory solitary asceticism. I never cared to be included in camps but only to conspire with real persons, egos of power, so I have also experienced ”excommunication” from Temples of anarchist Inquisition, because everyone has their sanctities, pillars of their constructs and few seem to like to smash their construct to the ground with the possibility of creating something more authentic and unchained. Because I attack and scorn any predetermined idealistic content. Sometimes of a ghost of the ”human”, the deity of many anarchist Temples, but also ”nature”, a metaphysical deity of eco-extremists and I will always be against anything idealistic or any idealized construct tries to rise above the uniqueness of the ego. Without duties of social constructs and without any proposal for the future, because I don’t care, I embrace the void and fight.

For the beauty of destruction into the prison of systems!

For the embrace of fire in the deafening silence of the night!

For the rise of nothing!

Destroy to create!

Falcon Of Chaos

The unique one meets the overhuman

69a199cf30867f3e99e53d61df8b441dNietzsche’s concept of the Ubermensch or overhuman is easily one of the most recognized ideas in his thought. However, it actually plays a small and somewhat vague role in the entirety of his philosophy. Nietzsche’s definition and characterization of the overhuman is also very limited. The overhuman is discussed with any depth only in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.


The overhuman is a problematic concept for understanding of Stirner and his influence, because it has been associated with the unique one. The same body of literature that intends to establish Stirner as Nietzsche’s predecessor, also tends to see the overhuman as a poetic restatement of the unique one. In addition, a significant number of the scholars who argue that there are profound differences between Stirner and Nietzsche, also see parallels between the unique one and the overhuman, arguing that the concepts are similar egoist reactions to both humanism and modernity.
But these efforts are specious, even with the scant and ambiguous information Nietzsche provides about the overhuman. About all that Nietzsche says about the overhuman is that it

(a) is a collective concept, not a reference to an individual;

(b) is devoid of the timidity, cowardice, and pettiness that frequently characterizes modern human beings, especially those in leadership positions;

(c) aspires to warrior values of greatness and nobility;

and (d) acknowledges and relishes the fact that life is risky and adventurous. What appears to matter more than the specific qualities of the overhuman is the rationale for its coming, and what humans must do to prepare for it. Continue reading

My Anarchism

images (1)In 1947, at 17 years of age, I began to call myself an anarchist. Having spent some three years in the socialist movement I naturally conceived of anarchism as a form of communism. I exchanged Bukharin for Bakunin, Kautsky for Kropotkin and Marx for Malatesta, but the goal of common ownership remained the same, even if the route was now a different one. And it was this goal to which I held for about the next ten years, despite changes in emphasis and tactics.

Towards the end of the 1950s I began to have serious doubts about the compatibility of anarchism and communism. At first my criticisms of anarchism as communism were mild and were mainly concerned to point out that there were other ways of viewing anarchism than the communist one. Then, in 1961, I read Max Stirner’s The Ego and His Own and became convinced that anarchism was not a communism, but an individualism. The conclusion I then reached, and to which I still hold, was that individualism, in the words of John Beverley Robinson, is “the recognition by the individual that he is above all institutions and formulas; that they exist only so far as he chooses to make them his own by accepting them,” and further, it is “the realization by the individual that he is an individual; that, as far as he is concerned, he is the only individual.” (This is not a claim for Solipsism. Robinson goes on to recognize there are “other individuals.” “But none of these is himself. He stands apart. His consciousness, and the desires and gratifications that enter into it, is a thing unique, no other can enter into it.”) Continue reading

Nameless: An Egoist Critique of Identity

Only when nothing is said about you and you are merely named, are you recognized as you. As soon as something is said about you, you are only recognized as that thing…  – Max Stirner

It’s amusing how often people confuse identity with individuality. Identity traces back to a Latin word meaning “sameness.” And sameness implies the existence of something with which I can be the same.

It is certainly possible to conceive of individuals as identical atoms bashing into each other—marxists like to assume that this is what individualists are talking about—but even atoms only become identical when you or I conceive of them as atoms, giving them an identity. Atomization is a process that has its basis in the denial of my unique individuality, and identification plays a part in this process. Continue reading