The Difference Between Archism And Egoism

by Alan Koontz

While you make a distinction between anarchism and egoism, you didn’t make one between archism and egoism. Indeed, it appeared to be your point that there was no difference between archism and egoism and therein lay the difference between egoism and anarchism. I beg to differ with you on this point insofar as I perceive a difference between archism and egoism.

It is implied in the article that the State is simply a condition of domination. An individual or group dominates another group. This definition is, however, incomplete for it leaves out that which makes it static.

The State is in fact the condition of domination wherein only a certain individual or group is permitted to dominate another group. The authority to dominate resides in a portion of the population over which the State reigns. The remainder of the population lacks such authority and indeed must renounce all desire to dominate (in the spirit of anarchism, no less).

The difference between the State and simple archy is that the former is tied to a concept while the latter is not. That concept is the authority to use force or impose one’s will on another – i. e., to dominate. The reign of the State depends on the reign of this concept.

The reason the egoist and the State are incompatible is that the former is the ruler of all concepts: including the concept on which the State depends. As far as the egoist is concerned, no one is authorized to dominate another. One possibly has the power to dominate another i.e. the former possesses some sort of advantage over the latter – but no one has the authority. The egoist has no compunction about dominating another “if this is in his interest. ” Nor is the egoist offended by domination as such. What the egoist doesn’t recognize is anyone’s exclusive authority to dominate another. This calls for renunciation on the part of the other even if it is not in his interest. Such authority is antagonistic to egoism.

The difference between the archist and the egoist is that the former could be possessed by the exclusive authority to dominate others whereas the latter could never be, even though neither is ever “bound by any demand for the renunciation of domination. ” The archist thus could dominate not because it is in his interest, but simply because he is authorized to do so. That wouldn’t be egoistic.


In Reply To Koontz by S. E. Parker

I am no believer in the authority of the State. In the essay from which I quoted Dora Marsden draws a distinction between “archistic” and “archonistic”. The first she defines as “any kind of initiatory action, any kind of ‘setting to’ of the living unit to the task of dominating the conditions which lie between it and the goal of its desire. ” The second she defines as relating to “the highest State magistrate” (the Archon) – i. e. the political ruler. In her use of the term “archism” therefore it is quite compatible with egoism, but “archonism”, insofar as it involves for its exercise a belief in authority, is not. Nonetheless, I can see no sound egoistic reason why an egoist should not assume the mantle of an authority towards others if it facilitates any act of domination he wishes to carry out and is competent to achieve. Of course, if there are egoists among these others they will not be taken in by this authority but will simply estimate how powerful the dominator is when deciding how to deal with him. Conscious egoism does not mean that I must necessarily expect all other egoists to be my allies. They may be the opposite.


Archists, Anarchists and Egoists

nbv gv nbbjgsound

“I am an anarchist! Wherefore I will not rule
And also ruled I will not be.”
— John Henry Mackay

“What I get by force I get by force, and what
I do not get by force I have no right to.”

— Max Stirner

In his book MAX STIRNER’S EGOISM John P. Clark claims that Stirner is an anarchist, but that his anarchism is “greatly inadequate”. This is because “he opposes domination of the ego by the State, but he advises people to seek to dominate others in any other way they can manage…Stirner, for all his opposition to the State…still exalts the will to dominate.”

Clark’s criticism springs from his definition of anarchism as opposition to “domination” in all its forms “not only domination of subjects by political rulers, but domination of races by other races, of females by males, of the young by the old, of the weak by the strong, and not least of all, the domination of nature by humans.”

In view of the comprehensiveness of his definition it is odd that Clark still sees Stirner’s philosophy as a type of anarchism – albeit a “greatly inadequate” one. He is quite correct in stating that the _leitmotif_ of _theoretical_ anarchism is opposition to domination and that, despite his anti-Statist sentiments, Stirner has no _principled_ objection to domination. Indeed, he writes “I know that my freedom is diminished even by my not being able to carry out my will on another object, be this something without will, like a government, an individual etc.”

Is conscious egoism, therefore, compatible with anarchism? There is no doubt that it is possible to formulate a concept of anarchism that is ostensibly egoistic. For many years I tried to do this and I know of several individuals who still claim to be anarchists because they are egoists. The problem, however, is that anarchism as a _theory_ of non-domination demands that individuals refrain from dominating others _even_if_they_could_gain_greater_satisfaction_from_dominating_ _than_from_not_dominating_. To allow domination would be to deny anarchism. In other words, the “freedom” of the anarchist is yet another yoke placed around the neck of the individual in the name of yet another conceptual imperative.

The question was answered at some length by Dora Marsden in two essays that appeared in her review for THE EGOIST September 12, 1914 and February 1, 1915. The first was entitled THE ILLUSION OF ANARCHISM; the second SOME CRITICS ANSWERED.

Some months before the appearance of her first essay on anarchism Marsden had been engaged in a controversy with the redoubtable Benjamin Tucker in which she had defended what she called “egoist anarchism” against what she saw as the “clerico-libertarianism” of Tucker. At the premature end of the controversy Tucker denounced her as an “egoist and archist,” to which she replied that she was quite willing to “not – according to Mr Tucker – be called ‘Anarchist’” but responded readily to “Egoist”.

In the interval between the end of the controversy and the publication of her first essay she had evidently given considerable thought to the relation of egoism to anarchism and had decided that the latter was something in which she could no longer believe. The gist of her new position was as follows:

Every form of life is archistic. “An archist is one who seeks to establish, maintain, and protect by the strongest weapons at his disposal, the law of his own interest.” All growing life-forms are aggressive: “aggressive is what growing means. Each fights for its own place, and to enlarge it, and enlarging it is a growth. And because life-forms are gregarious there are myriads of claims to lay exclusive hold on any place. The claimants are myriad: bird, beast, plant, insect, vermin – each will assert its sole claim to any place as long as it is permitted: as witness the pugnacity of gnat, weed, and flea, the scant ceremony of the housewife’s broom, the axe which makes a clearing, the scythe, the fisherman’s net, the slaughter- house bludgeon: all assertions of aggressive interest promptly countered by more powerful interests! The world falls to him who can take it, if instinctive action can tell us anything.”

It is this aggressive ‘territoriality’ that motivates domination. “The living unit is an organism of embodied wants; and a want is a term which indicates an apprehension of the existence of barriers – conditions easy or hard – which lie between the ‘setting onwards’ and the ‘arrival’, i.e. the satisfaction. Thus every want has two sides, obverse and reverse, of which the one would read the ‘not yet dominated’, and the other ‘progressive domination’. The two sides grow at the expense of each other. The co-existence of the consciousness of a lacking satisfaction, with the corresponding and inevitable ‘instinct to dominate’, that which prolongs the lack, are features which characterize ‘life’. Bridging the interval between the want and its satisfaction is the exercising of the ‘instinct to dominate’ – obstructing conditions. The distinction between the lifeless and the living is comprised under an inability to be other than a victim to conditions. That of which the latter can be said, possesses life; that of which the former, is inanimate. It is to this doministic instinct to which we have applied the label archistic.”

Of course, this exercising of the doministic instinct does not result in every life-form becoming dominant. Power being naturally unequal the struggle for predominance usually settles down into a condition in which the less powerful end up being dominated by the more powerful. Indeed, many of the less powerful satisfy the instinct to dominate by identifying themselves with those who actually do dominate: “the great lord can always count on having doorkeepers in abundance.”

Marsden argues that anarchists are among those who, like Christians, seek to muzzle the doministic tendency by urging us to renounce our desires to dominate. Their purpose “is to make men willing to assert that though they are born and inclined archists they _ought_ to be anarchists.” Faced with “this colossal encounter of interest, i.e. of lives…the anarchist breaks in with his ‘Thus far and no further’” and “introduces his ‘law’ of ‘the inviolability of individual liberty’.” The anarchist is thus a _principled_ _embargoist_ who sees in domination the evil of evils. “‘It is the first article of my faith that archistic encroachments upon the ‘free’ activity of Men are not compatible with the respect due to the dignity of Man as Man. The ideal of Humanity forbids the domination of one man by his fellows’….This humanitarian embargo is an Absolute: a procedure of which the observance is Good-in-itself. The government of Man by Man is wrong: the respect of an embargo constitutes Right.”

The irony is, that in the process of seeking to establish this condition of non-domination called anarchy, the anarchist would be compelled to turn to a sanction that is but another form of domination. In the _theoretical_ society of the anarchist they would have to resort to the intra-individual domination of _conscience_ in order to prevent the inter-individual domination that characterizes political government. In the end, therefore, anarchism boils down to a species of “clerico-libertarianism” and is the gloss covering the wishes of “a unit possessed of the instinct to dominate – even his fellow-men.”

Not only this, but faced with the _practical_ problems of achieving the “Free Society”, the anarchist fantasy would melt away before the realities of power. “‘The State is fallen, long live the State’ – the furthest going revolutionary anarchist cannot get away from this. On the morrow of his successful revolution he would need to set about finding means to protect his ‘anarchistic’ notions: and would find himself protecting his own interests with all the powers he could command, like an archist: formulating his laws and maintaining his State, until some franker archist arrived to displace and supersede him.”

Nonetheless, having abandoned anarchism Marsden has no intention of returning to an acceptance of the _authority_ of the State and its laws for this would be to confuse “an attitude which refused to hold laws and interests sacred (i.e. whole unquestioned, untouched) and that which refuses to respect the existence of forces, of which Laws are merely the outward visible index. It is a very general error, but the anarchist is especially the victim of it: the greater intelligence of the archist will understand that though laws considered as sacred are foolishness, respect for any and every law is due for just the amount of retaliatory force there may be involved in it, if it be flouted. Respect for ‘sanctity’ and respect for ‘power’ stand at opposite poles, the respecter of the one is the verbalist, of the other – the archist: the egoist.”

I agree with Dora Marsden. Anarchism is a redemptionist secular religion concerned to purge the world of the sin of political govern- ment. Its adherents envisage a “free society” in which all archistic acts are forbidden. Cleansed of the evil of domination “mankind” will live, so they say, in freedom and harmony and our present “oppressions” will be confined to the pages of history books. When, therefore, Marsden writes that “anarchists are not separated in any way from kinship with the devout. They belong to the Christian Church and should be recognized as Christianity’s picked children” she is not being merely frivolous. Anarchism is a _theory_ of an ideal society – whether communist, mutualist, or individualist, matters little in this respect – of necessity must demand _renunciation_ of domination both in means and ends. That in _practice_ it would necessitate another form of domination for its operation is a contradiction not unknown in other religions – which in no way alter their essence.

The conscious egoist, in contrast, is not bound by any demand for renunciation of domination and if it is within his competence he will dominate others _if_this_is_in_his_interest_. That anarchism and egoism are not equivalent is admitted, albeit unwillingly, by the well-known American anarchist John Beverley Robinson – who depicted an anarchist society in the most lachrymous terms in his REBUILDING THE WORLD – in his succinct essay EGOISM. Throwing anarchist principles overboard he writes of the egoist that “if the State does things that benefit him, he will support it; if it attacks him and encroaches on his liberty, he will evade it by any means in his power, if he is not strong enough to withstand it.” Again, “if the law happens to be to his advantage, he will avail himself of it; if it invades his liberty he will transgress it as far as he thinks it wise to do so. But he has no regard for it as a thing supernal.”

Robinson thus denies the validity of the anarchist principle of non-domination, since the existence of the State and its laws necessitates the existence of a permanent apparatus of repression. If I make use of them for my advantage, then I invoke their repressive power against anyone who stands opposed to what I want. In other words, I make use of an _archistic_ action to gain my end.

Egoism, _conscious_ egoism, seen for what it is instead of being pressed into the service of a utopian ideology, has nothing to do with what Marsden well-called “clerico-libertarianism”. It means, as she put it in her controversy with Tucker, “….a tub for Diogenes; a continent for Napoleon; control of a Trust for Rockefeller; all that I desire for me: _if_we_can_get_them_.” It is not based upon any fantasy for its champions are well aware of the vital difference between “if I want something I ought to get it” and “being competent to achieve what I want”. The egoist lives among the realities of power in the world of archists, not among the myths of the renouncers in the dream world of anarchists.


Thinking and Thought


It is strange to find searchers coming here seeking thoughts, followers after truth seeking new lamps for old, right ideas for wrong. It seems fruitless to affirm that our business is to annihilate thought, to shatter the new lamps no less than the old, to dissolve ideas, the “right” as well as the “wrong”. “It is a new play of artistry , some new paradox,” they reflect, not comprehending that artistry and paradox are left as the defences of power not yet strong enough to comprehend. If a man has the power that comprehends, what uses has he left for paradox? If he sees a thing as it is, why must he needs describe it in terms of that which is not? Paradox is the refuge of the adventurous guesser: the shield of the oracle whose answer is not ready. Searchers should not bring their thoughts to us: we have no scruple in destroying their choicest, and giving them none in return. They would be well able to repair the depredations elsewhere, however, for nowhere else, save here, are thoughts not held sacred and in honour. Everywhere, from all sides, they press in thick upon men, suffocating life. All is thought and no thinking. _We_ do the thinking: the rest of the world spin thoughts. If from the operation of thinking one rises up only with thoughts, not only has the thinking-process gone wrong: it has not begun. To believe that it has is as though one should imagine the work of digesting food satisfactorily carried through when the mouth has been stuffed with sand.

The process of thinking is meant to co-ordinate two things which are real: the person who thinks and the rest of the phenomenal world, the world of sense. Any part of the process which can be described in terms unrelated to these two – and only two – real parties in the process is redundant and pernicious, an unnecessary by-product which it would be highly expedient to eliminate. Thoughts, the entire world of ideas and concepts, are just these intruders and irrelevant excesses. Someone says, apropos of some change without a difference in the social sphere, “We are glad to note the triumph of progressive ideas.” Another, “We rejoice in the fact that we are again returning to the ideas of honour and integrity of an earlier age.” We say, leprosy or cholera for choice. Idea, idea, always the idea. As though the supremacy of the idea were not the subjection of men, slaves to the idea. Men need no ideas. They have no use for them ( Unless indeed they are of the literary breed – then they live upon them by their power to beguile the simple). What men need is power of being, strength in themselves: and intellect which in the thinking process goes out as a scout, comparing, collating, putting like by like, or nearly like, is but the good servant which the individual being sends afield that he may the better protect, maintain and augment himself. Thinking, invaluable as it is in the service of being, is, essentially a very intermittent process. It works only between whiles. In the nadir and zenith of men’s experience it plays no part, when they are stupid and when they are passionate. Descartes’ maxim “Cogito ergo sum,” carried the weight it did and does merely because the longfelt influence of ideas had taken the virtue out of men’s souls. Stronger men would have met it, not with an argument, but a laugh. It is philosophy turned turtle. The genesis of knowledge is not in thinking but in being. Thinking widens the limits of knowledge, but the base of the latter is in feeling. “I know” because “I am.” The first follows the second and not contrariwise. The base – and highest reaches – of knowledge lie not in spurious thoughts, fine-drawn, not yet in the humble and faithful collecting of correspondences which is thinking, but in experienced emotion. What men may be, their heights and depths, they can divine only in experienced emotion. The vitally true things are all personally revealed, and they are true primarily only for the one to whom they are revealed. For the rest the revelation is hearsay. Each man is his own prophet. A man’s “god” ( a confusing term, since it has nothing to do with God, the Absolute – a mere thought) is the utmost emotional reach of himself: and is in common or rare use according to each individual nature. A neighbour’s “god” is of little use to any man. It represents a wrong goal, a false direction. Continue reading

The Dissolution of Value: Examining Heidegger on Nietzsche’s Nihilism

20120622_223402In his lectures on European Nihilism, Martin Heidegger lays bare the philosophical horizon for an interpretation of Nietzsche that cuts against the grain. Given well after his seminal publication of Being and Time, Heidegger’s lectures on Nietzsche’s view of nihilism seek to go beyond mere explication to a level of interpretation and interaction that moves his predecessor into uncharted metaphysical waters. Beyond the realm of metaphysical discourse, the stakes for Heidegger’s presentation and ultimate critique of Nietzsche could not be higher. What we see in Heidegger’s view of Nietzsche is an examination of nihilism as a fundamental process by which the way we value concepts and ideas in the world is forever mutated as a servant of the constant overcoming of the will to power. What does Heidegger think Nietzsche truly means by terms like“nihilism” and “will to power”? Probing further, what does Heidegger make of Nietzsche’s eventual response to nihilism? Is he satisfied with Nietzsche’s solution?
In this discussion, I claim that what Heidegger thinks Nietzsche means by “nihilism” is a process by which the uppermost values devalue themselves through the constant overcoming of will to power. From this interpretation, Heidegger fundamentally diverges from his predecessor on the grounds that Nietzsche, in his “devaluation of the highest powers hitherto” has presupposed a kind of Cartesian interpretation of the meaning of Being that binds him to the limits of the very value-thinking he despises. Through a close analysis of what Heidegger understands Nietzsche to mean by the terms “nihilism”, “highest values”, “will to power”, and “value thinking”, I demonstrate the nuanced way in which Heidegger follows in Nietzsche’s footsteps and to what degree Heidegger is successful in moving beyond the metaphysical trap he believes Nietzsche to be in.

Continue reading

Germany – Claim of responsibility and Statement by Wildfire Cell

published for reasons of personal affinity only:


“It’s about time that we burned this country, this artificial world; it’s the onset of the black fire that will consume their businesses and industry of the filthy techno-industrial society. It is now time to articulate a direct and cold criticism, away from fantasies, put it forth, and present strikes.”
As the plague of modernization runs rampant in the urban-cemetaries of technological mass-society, suffocating our existence more and more with every passing day, we press on with our personal war against civilization and the hordes of submissive cowards who recreate and uphold it with their everyday acts of servitude and compliance.
New innovations in the realm of technological control and domination advance daily, with most welcoming the proliferation of “smart” technologies and the total digitalization of life’s every aspect. In the name of “convenience” the hyper-civilized masses mediate the entirety of their worthless lives through screens and receivers, feeding the industrial leviathan with an endless stream of data. Data which with the aid of corporations like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Vodafone, Sony etc. is used to further state and governmental surveillance programs, solidifying and enforcing the illusions of “social peace” and control.
Mobile phone antennas, besides functioning as important pieces of technical infrastructure for the smooth-functioning of society and the process of mass stupification also emit massive amounts of toxicity in the form of radiowaves and microwaves, resulting in tumors and brain damage in creatures dwelling nearby and are known to interfere with the navigational senses of birds and insects, leading to mass die-offs of entire colonies of bees and thus causing irreparable damage to existing ecosystems.
We know that by destroying these antennas and severing a couple of veins of the telecommunications sector we do little to harm the corporations who own these devices, but we create moments of pleasure and egoistic satisfaction in our lives, breaking with the routinization of life when spending time in the cities and aiming to cause stress and discomfort amongst the techno-junkies of the repugnant masses by disrupting the increasingly normalized and manufactured “need” for constant connectivity.
In the late hours of 2/2/17, accompanied by our furious hatred of society and a deep love for the aforementioned non-human animals, we spread our fire to the icy streets of Leipzig, Germany. Hooded and masked, we lurked under the cover of darkness and headed for our first target, a cluster of well-hidden antennas owned by Vodafone. We put the torch to a number of cables that ran up the side of a brick chimney between some houses and a vegan hipster cafe. The flames climbed all the way up the cables to the antennas, engulfing them completely and scattering flames and sparks across an area of 60 meters. This was achieved by covering the bottom of the exposed cables in flammable gel and then placing two slow-burning incendiaries between the cables. We lit them up and set off laughing to ourselves as we disappeared once more into the night.
Then on the night of 7/2/17 more attacks were carried out by an individuality of the cell in a different area of the city, these are their words.
… Between the sounds of the wintering forest and the sounds of non-human creatures trying to live their wild lives, in the middle of these calming moments I hear myself asking for moments of joy, for the free moments of rage. So I destroyed 7 hunting towers and when I was finished, my desire was asking for more. More moments of silent activities between the singing of the birds. More moments of self liberation. So in the same night I set fire to 6 cars indiscriminately. Without caring for the moral ideas of targets and accepted targets, the abstract ideas of the “right” or “wrong”. Just with my fully lonely desire for disturbing normal civilized life, just for the smell of burning rubber in the frosty winter air when you know that tomorrow some civilized slaves are going to cry for their disgusting cars. Three of them were torched completely…


In the news report concerning this attack, the police made the statement with regards to the motives of the arson spree that “A political background, however, can be excluded”. We were surprised to see that these morons actually got one thing right. We don’t give a shit about the “political”, we just want to have some fun while watching this whole world burn.


When we first began claiming some of our acts of destruction as the Wildfire Cell, we also associated our little gang with the ALF, ELF and FAI as part of a final experiment in communication between other interesting individualities within the “Anarchist” camp who we were not in direct contact with. Then in our second communique we abandoned the use of these acronyms and spoke briefly about some of our motivations for doing so. We will take the time to continue the dialogue surrounding this process here, for the sake of deconstructing the abstractions of our ideas which we ourselves were the authors of.
As we expressed previously, we no longer need these labels to “identify” ourselves or our actions as a “part” of anything. We will never belong to the “movements” created by these reified collectivist identities and we completely and especially reject the moralizing principles of “non-violence” towards “humans” advocated by the tendencies of the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front.
We retained the name of the cell to mark clearly our departure from the sewers of ideologicalized and/or idealistic thinking and signify the development of our desires and iconoclastic praxis. To be honest with ourselves, we feel that in our first communique some rather erroneous claims were made by the use of expressions which at times we feel correspond with our passions, but inside the quagmire of civilized interactions, the chains of language present the opportunity for countless misinterpretations, rendering our war cries into mere slogans and catch-phrases reproducing roles and ideals. We aim to do away with all of these ghosts that hinder the strengthening of our individualities and block our paths towards the chaos of an unmediated, wild existence which we strive for in the present.
From here on the communiques and claims of responsibility coming from each nuclei of the Wildfire Cell will be accompanied by a secondary cell name to allow for greater flexibility and autonomy in carrying out international attacks and for clearer expression of the motives and opinions held by the individual(s) responsible.
We will be very clear that this is no “call out” for others who we do not know to take up our name in the ritualistic pluralism typical of the “Anarchist” camp. It is simply a strategic move on our behalf to enhance our capabilities for greater destruction.
When we speak of idealism, we mean the hypocritical idea of fighting for an external goal or cause, for some better future or mystified idol. As we do not believe in the possibility of destroying the prison of civilization completely, our acts of destruction are acts tending towards our self-liberation. Acts which aim to break the chains that society has forced upon us from birth and create the potential to escape the great cage momentarily by decivilizing ourselves and becoming dangerous. The idea of causing terror and disturbances amongst the slumbering masses and transforming the dream worlds of progressivism and utopia into a living nightmare for those we consider our enemies is for us an other important part of the reasons why we carry out our egoistic and criminal acts.
We are not “Anarchists” because we have long since rejected the stagnant ideology of “Anarchism”. We are not so foolish to invest any “hope” in the “struggle”. We are not motivated by devotional fantasies of “victory”, “revolution” or “collapse”. We have grown utterly sick of this christianizing circus and all of the posturing, censorship, backstabbing, moralistic preaching and the ceaseless dull chatter. We are not saying that all who call themselves “anarchists” fall into this ideological trap, there are still some unique ones who claim this “identity” for themselves, that is their discretion. Amongst these few we proudly count some of our close allies and accomplices.
We are a small circle of criminal nihilists and selfish individualists. Nihilism for us represents a process of negation and denial, it is our tool to tear down the walls of civilized constructs imposed on our indomitable egos. The cultural-social chains of “morality”, “identity”, “gender”, “altruism”, “optimism”, “equality”, “solidarity”, “respect”, “humanism”, “anthropocentrism” and so forth all go up in the flames of iconoclastic destruction. When we head into battle, we wield our nihilism as a weapon with which we playfully create moments of joyous rupture within the suffocating confines of techno-industrial society in the here and now. We are motivated by our desires and passions of vengeance for all that which we have lost. With all the strength and ingenuity we possess, we turn our vitality into our means of attack against the reality we hate, meeting our enemies head on and coming out stronger for it.
We have wandered far and wide. We have seen the beauty of natural chaos deep within ancient woodlands and amongst the weeds that crack the concrete. In the solitude of the mountain tops and in the silent encounters with other nocturnal individuals stalking in the night.  When sharpening our knives in the shadows of the forests and conspiring around campfires with our fierce accomplices, those with whom we share the desire to break out of the cages of our domestication and become feral beings.
We have witnessed first-hand the devastation that the kingdom of “humanity” wreaks on the earthly environment, we have stood on the edges of vast and desolate quarries, we have walked through the clear cut forests and along the oil-slicked beaches strewn with plastic and the corpses of fishes and birds, feeling the hatred and anger building up inside us more and more like the blackness that gathers in our lungs. We have seen the horrors inside the factory farms and we each knew then in our hearts that liberation alone could never be enough.
We have set off incendiaries, torching the machines and infrastructure that annihilate the wild, momentarily paralyzing the norms and procedures of civilized order. We have launched attacks on the employees of ecocidal companies by daylight and moonlight, feeling more alive than ever as they fled before our knives, molotovs and stones. Our acts of vandalism have caused powercuts and severed internet and telephone connections to countless homes and businesses. We have rioted with criminal intent that does not stop at merely breaking a few windows and our rabid hands move to steal every necessity for our survival that comes within reach.
We are amoral, illegalist, antisocial and unrepentant individualists at war with techno-industrial society and all human progress.
With courage and determination we continue to practice new techniques in the application of the destructive arts, improving our methods of sabotage, attack and evasion. As we will stop at nothing, our attacks will erupt asymmetrically as we scurry from shadow to shadow and our fires will continue to spread across this entire filthy continent.
Our battle lines are drawn and we know where we stand; in complicity with the fierce anticivilizationists, eco-extremists, uncontrollables and pessimists who, burdened neither by hope nor fear, continue to return shameless, indiscriminate and decisive blows against the techno-hive.
“Towards the proliferation of attacks and coordination of groups and individualities to strike harder and constantly against the patriarchal civilization and its techno-industrial framework, the path is arduous and uncertain, only our actions in the present reveal our real convictions.”
Merciless annihilation is the only thing this putrid system, its representatives, its workers and its loyal citizens deserve!
Let the moral-judiciaries of every stripe continue to cry and whine! Let the talkers keep on talking!
On with the war!
– Wildfire Cell
PS. We were excited to hear that on the morning of 8/2/17 a bomb threat was declared to the students of the Education and Technology Center (BTZ) in Leipzig, causing the evacuation of 500 people from the premises, a large police and military response and a state of fear and panic amongst the disgusting progressivist students and teachers. Terrorist acts of this kind, especially ones directed against the techno-science institutions are somewhat rare in this particular geographical region and we welcome the spread of unrest and disorder inside “Fortress Europe”. The barbarians are already within the walls. We have always been here and we always will be.


In Defence of Stirner

tumblr_m5mo1glzFm1rwpzb0o1_1280Professor Ernesto Serafini, an academic who has polemicized with me before, now wants to start again and has written, amongst other things:

You who boast of not being of the school of a Malatesta, but rather of Stirner, and who present the latter as a philosopher whose thought has a logic free from the contradictions one finds in the great Nietzsche, do not understand, nor wish to understand, the contradictions that also exist in Stirner. But Ettore Zoccoli answers you well in his book Anarchy. Indeed, he writes on page 410:

Although supposed to be politically and socially disintegrated, other individuals still remain. Welt says Stirner, it is up to the individual to make sure that those who surround him should be only a means to his ends. Briefly, it is an egoistic antimony raised by a metaphysician, that makes of each individual, at the same time, by a transcendental hypothesis, the supreme end and the most ignored means. In fact, while offering to the individual every possibility against his fellows, it denies them any possibility of being anything but mere means. Then it offers to each of them in relation to the first individual every chance to reduce him to simply being a means. So that, at the same time in which an individual acts with the aim of considering others as means, he is faced with the action -not associated and therefore not multiplied, it is true, but numerically additional-of all those others who invert the role regarding him. The absolute autonomy of the individual is obliterated by the absolute autonomy of all others. This imperative of absolute egoism is either impossible if the atomistic aggregation of individuals represents even a system of force in equilibrium, or, if applied, would result in the reduction to nothing of any social aggregate no matter how elementary. It is an ethical imperative that even a cannibal would be ashamed to accept. 

To Sarafini and Zoccoli it seems a contradiction to consider the individual as the only reality there is, having no other end than himself, and, at the same time, to accept that this same reality can be considered by others as a means to their ends. But, in substance, there is no contradiction. There would he if we referred to the same individual, if I should regard myself as the only existing reality who, as the supreme end, cannot be a means, and, at the same time, accept the demand of other individuals to serve them as means to their ends. Then I must choose if I am the ultimate end or the least of means. But since I regard myself as the end and the others as means, the two opposed values are not attributed to the same subject but to different ones, and so there is no contradiction. Can I not regard myself in one way and others to the contrary?

No, says Serafini, because others are individuals like you. But even if they are individuals like me, I cannot consider them as I do myself.

I know myself to be the only reality because I can sense myself. If I did not exist I could not sense. Therefore, I am. And I recognize not only my reality, but also an external “reality” the material world, the spirit of other men, etc. But is this other “reality” imagined by me, or does it exist in itself? Continue reading

Ownness and Property-All and Nothing

53The self as egoist was present all along as the object of the most basic negations of the God of religion or the ethical person. The self was repudiated as “sinner” and “inhuman wretch.” But nothing could erase the self’s being the self-this bodily self, with its inherent I-ness, its ownness (Eigenheit) . Beaten down by God, the state, society, and humanity, it nevertheless slowly began to raise its head again. It could do this because fanatics brandishing Bibles or reason or the ideals of humanity “are unconsciously and unintentionally pursuing I-ness”.

Firstly, it was revealed that “God’s” true body was “man,” which represented one step toward the self-discovery of the ego.

 The search for the self remained unconscious as the ego lost itself in fanaticism over reason or the idea of humanity.

 In humanism’s denunciations of the egoism of the ego as inhuman and selfish, the more vigorous its efforts, the clearer it became that the ego was not something to be set aside. It was only from the depths of nihility to which the ego had been banished that it could, in a gesture of negating all negation, rise to reclaim itself.

 In the first half of his work, Stirner develops this ironical dialectic; in the second half, he deals with the positive standpoint of egoism, showing how the ego claims its uniqueness and ownness, embraces within itself all other things and ideas, assimilates and appropriates them to itself as owner (Eigner), and thus reaches the awareness of the unique one (Einzige) who has appropriated everything within his own I-ness and has made the world the content of his own life. Continue reading