S.E. Parker & other Enemies, on Immediatism

For fans of Sidney Parker, Immediatism now has eight episodes of his essays. To read these and more, check out "Enemies of Society: An Anthology of Individualist and Egoist Thought," from Ardent Press and Little Black Cart, containing nearly eighty essays and biographical pieces. Highlights are episode 457, which looks at the myth of the People or Workers who will supposedly rise up in revolution, and episode 461, which makes comparisons between Marxism and fascism.

Listed below are the S. E. Parker episodes first, followed by other Enemies of Society.

Do not miss episode 100, the introductory essay to the book, called "Preamble: Drawing First Blood" by Meme, Myself, and I. It is an outstanding overview of individualism and egoism.

By S. E. Parker:

Notes on Stirner and Nietzsche
Nietzsche: Antichrist?
Anarchism and the Proletarian Myth
Three European Individualists
Voltairine de Cleyre
Stirner on Education
Stirner, Marx, and Fascism
Anarchism vs. Socialism

By other Enemies:

Preamble: Drawing First Blood, by Meme, Myself, and I
Nietzsche, by Enzo Martucci
Anarchism and Individualism, by Georges Palante
Anarchism, Society, and the Socialized Mind, by Francis Ellingham

Feedback and requests to Cory@Immediatism.com and your comment may be shared in a future episode.

There are 49 Comments

That's a common attribute of the genius, they are often unknown and don't socialize amongst the intelligentsia, keeping their incredible wisdom concealed so that it is not discovered by society's brutish hordes and torn to pieces and destroyed while they lìve, and is only discovered after they have died.

Same for the morons, and the Village Idiot. Being a misfit doesn't mean "genius" by default.

Sid Parker warped anarchism and egoism into Ragnar Redbeard-esq fascist scumfuckery. His pasty ass thought he was an Übermensch but he couldn't even overcome worshiping to alpha male phantasms.

Collectivists - just can't get enough scapegoating & strawmanning the individalists.

so a claim filled with what you think are witty insults acting as filler so it will be more convincing without evidence to back it up?

It's not a claim, child. Sid Parker said as much in interviews and writing. Calm your hurt feelings and simply Google it. Go to his archive. Read his own words for your EvIDeNce. Then cry, sad anarch!

Nobody has said anything of the sort. Perhaps concern yourself less with what others forbid you to possess, mighty anarch!

Strictly speaking, no one is the overman. Even Zarathustra wasn’t the overman. The overman is just an abstraction. A “spook”, I guess. But one designed to inspire us to be and do better by letting go of envy, resentment and pettiness, among many other things. It’s an ideal on the horizon that people should strive to become, though they can never fully be, because they are imperfect human apes born into a downwards-pointed world.

Nietzsche > Stirner, imo. Stirner, I feel, is just sorta retarded lol.

The only thing clear here is that neither of you has read Nietzsche.

I bark at the blithering cacophony of the syphilitic lunatics that wail in perdition in this underworld that is the underside of the articles of this website, knowing that they will bark back!

What is the overman but an overcompensation for his insecurities of being an inadequate male?
Nietzsche was a misogynist, his contempt for weakness is nothing but a reflection of his machismo, seeing the weak as a feminine trait. Calling anarchism the politics of the weak and pitiful, and calling anarchists dogs.

The superman is humanism on steriods, flaunting his slaver morality, the western white male's inflated sense of supremacy over woman, animal and nature.

My anarchy is a feral bitch. Civilized man prides himself in the vivisection of my kind. Whether he has the power to restrain me with his chains, he is always powerless to restrain my desire. I know my weaknesses and this is not a cause for shame, it informs the ways I will go about my revenge. My resentment is the hatred I foster that will embolden me to murder my abuser. If it suits me, my revenge will be served with passive aggression, like the wife who poisons her husband as she serves him his meal. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

My anarchy is the mother, not the daughter of desire. It’s not the act of birthing, nor the act of mothering that defines my anarchy, but the cutting of the umbilical cord, the reckless abandon of desire. An excision at birth, leaving at its navel a permanent mark of hostility against all lineages. A beast set loose on the world, feral and superprecocial. Feral desire learns quickly to bite the hands of anyone that comes near.

I bark at this pederast cloister of self-styled monocled aristocrats the secrete their poisonous syphilitic philosophy that’s sterilized their minds, hearts and gonads!

Fuck off! Fuck off! Fuck off!

Sure, but there were two Nietzsche... Freddy and his sister. The sister -a flaming proto-Nazi- as many people know was responsible for distortion his later writings down to he very notion of the Overman, that wasn't about brutish supermacho crap, but rather about a new human whose morality is centered around the overcoming of the obstacles in life, the "amor fati", as well as self-realization/self-affirmation.

But for how distorted it ended up to be (both by Nazis and 20th century capitalists), I'd rather be into Stirner's view of the Unique.

Yet the misogynist part may be true... As Freddy Nietzche seemed to have been a lot into getting laid with female prostitutes -from which he purportedly got syphilis- which might reveal that he some personal issues with women.

So now we’re saying that people who support sex workers are misogynists?

His argument, I mean. If seen through a merely “descriptive” type of lens laying out how the world really works, then what’s wrong with it? At what point do you stop to consider that the natural world isn’t some pink and blue padded playpen for kindergarteners where the lions lay down with the lambs and everyone lives happily ever after. Redbeards book calls on us to summon the moral toughness and spiritual strength to stand up and do single combat with Life on Life’s terms. “Might makes right”, well, maybe you should stop whining and go about acquiring some ‘might’. If you had might, your freedom would naturally follow.

Serious question, what is actually logically wrong or incorrect with that argument?

I’ll wait.

Who said anything was "wrong" with it? You are making great leaps and laughably weak strawmen to rise to the defense of your dead alpha mans. Why?

I'll wait.

What is wrong with blue padded playpen for kindergarteners?

I'll wait

I liked where Sidney was going right before the Redbeard turn. I agree that the 'ist' and 'ism' of anarchy need to be jettisoned but anarchy the idea and value can stay. My post-anarchism I call anarch-egoist-anarchy. The concept of anarch is the best label positional way to marry the idea of anarchy with Stirner imo. It's Junger's term but the content is different. It's post elective/proposed anarchy.

Mixing Jünger's concept of the fascist anarch into your own anarch-pedo-egozigist-anarchy are you? Would you call your "positional way" a 'third' position? How has the reception been? Where is your most comprehensive writing on this available, SirEinzige? I would like to read it.

The term anarch does not even start with Junger(who is NOT a fascist) it actually goes back to Howard Irving Young in The Nation in 1923 as a way to describe the ultra individualism of Benjamin De Casseres. Here have a read idiot https://www.unionofegoists.com/2019/01/28/de-casseres-anarch/

My appropriation of the term is to bring Stirner to anarchy in a way that avoids the elective position proposed solution pitfalls of anarchism/anarchist as well as going in a thoroughly post-left post-human and post-modern direction. Also, no it is not a 3rd position you moron. It's a post elective position. Anarch positions to and embodies anarchy.

Read my twitter and blog.

Is it true that you are only slightly less hung than William Gillis?

Hey 134 Twitter followers since 2015 is nothing to sneeze at. That is a lot of influence. People are clearly listening.

Links to unionofegoists as his source LMAO. Ziggles on a whole nother level.

Your “appropriation” of the term is clearly from Jünger’s concept of the sovereign individual and not Yoing’s descriptive of DeCasseres which appears solely on the title. Don’t tuck, SirEinzige. The anarch-egoist-anarchy anarch need never apologize for their appropriations.

When the content that I’m aiming for with anarch is different from Junger’s. Junger(who I actually like as a thinker in his own right) is not interested in the intercoursive anarchy of Stirner even though he did influence him. Junger is a reactionary, I’m not. Anarch as a label and term makes perfect sense for Stirner to differentiate his anarchy ideas from the elective positionality of anarchism.

Bro, you even said so yourself at 13:42. “It’s Junger’s term”. Go to bed you’re done.

In the sense that people think of him as he most recently came up with the term, and there are marginal aspects of his ideas that are useful(The Forest Passage) but the idea of anarch is bigger then and precedes Junger.

Yes, Jünger placed the term "anarch" within its correct anti-social apolitical context, something the previous users of the term had corrupted.

What's wrong with slaughtering lambs with a chainsaw in a kindergarten playpen?

Oahw, poor widdle lamb wanted to overpopulate the natural world and eat all vegetation to create an eroded denuded landscape and multiple extinctions of other species, but the good ol' lion overcat came to the rescue and returned the existent to its balanced hierarchical digestive organ imperatives. Overcat don't eat straw and don't become dumb sheep.

Actually the present trajectory for life surviving makes politics petty. Viruses don't just lie down and die when someone destroys their habitat, they hunt down a substitute host, and if humans keep overpopulating they will become the prime host for a lethora of virus variants.
The overman will be replaced by the Overvirus.

Human fertility rates have been on a worldwide decline since 1963

but just listened to a podcast talking about how rates in the u.s. and in japan are freaking people out because young people won't be around to do necessary work when old timers get too old, and *gasp* towns might disappear.
of course, some will take this as an argument for more robots.

Keep waiting. Fascist blowhards like you (and that fool "Redbeard") are beyond arguing as you can't understand anything outside of your brutish slave morality that always needs comparisons with their self-serving view of the natural world in order to claim a unquestionable "FACT". Bye,

lol you got me!

Ragnar says that if you can’t bench 100kg you will be declared a female in the coming imperium, kthnxbye.

I think S. E. Parker is a good starting point to study how Christian or modern subjectivity is established at the level of individualism. As well as a kind of pragmatics, we can find the operation of power by examining his ideological language. If he lived in the early 19th century, there is nothing strange about these things; But if someone is going to repeat the same thing in the 21st century, it's probably brain disease.

You could say the same thing about Shakespeare and how historical context doesn't influences choices in lifestyle, and that the author's description of ideological thought patterns and tendencies does not really reflect upon their own inner individualist essence or soul, to use a 20th ceñtury spooky term without it actually being spooky.
Like Junger, Heidegger is another excellent example.

Junger was better than Freud anyway, at least there was no family theater or castration. Heidegger is another topic, involving technology and existence. In fact, it had a pioneer of anarchism, Alfred Jarry, as a Bergson student. That's why Deleuze studied Bergson. What I have studied recently is about this aspect, but now I am busy with other things.

You're right. The author doesn't reflect the inner individual soul, but I think it's a philosophical failure. The key point is that thinking has not yet begun, and the broader practice is always ignored. If a person only starts from the established discourse, ideology and position, then he will not have any real knowledge. The construction of subjectivity is manifested in the false self-consciousness, while ignoring the role of unconsciousness.

Heidegger inherited Alfred Yari's most important point is that the practice of a kind of life reverses the theoretical culture since Socrates. Another important point is the application of technology, which makes this possible. For Heidegger, technology contains a possibility. But what is technology? Many people easily misunderstand this point. For example, dynamite is a kind of technology, and bicycle is also a kind of technology, which turns the metaphysical passion of Christianity into a stage racing car of technology.

In fact, these are the problems that need to be considered at present. Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche is problematic, which is why we need to put forward different views.

You may call this lazy thinking on my part, that having firstly abandoned the Newtonian logic pillar of the Western rationalist paradigm for the nihil-esque informal spontaneous emotional intuitional mode of inter-relational discourse, having reached the plateau of existential cynicism, the only remaining course for me was the Now's experiential reality.
A lazy analogy would be to consider Barry White's soul song "Never Gonna Give You Up"., about his lasting commitment to Glodean White his wife unto death. As a wealthy Christian black man he was a god fearing slave and brainwashed fool enslaved by the capitalist liberal ideology of America, yet his songs, as sickenly sentimentally devotional to monogamous morality as they were, still do not express to me what real "human soul" is all about, the bare facts thàt confront a genuinely self-awareness. Of course without the orchestra and his excellent use of the microphone even I could half talk-croon smooth caressing words just as wèll, but I digress. This "narcissistic culture", so far removed from the organic earthly existence of animal life, vitality and experience and obsessively channelled into the disproportionate love of only one other person in a herd morality which punishes sex outside monogamy, and also the disproportionate love of technology and progress is an analogy of the Western minds failure to pursue a super reality,
I'm unfamiliar with Hiedegger's interpretation of Nietzsche but I imagine it is to do with the dasien's immediate perceptions contrasting to the overman's arrogant visionary expectations.

I don't know why the previous reply was deleted. Maybe it's because I confused Junger and Jung? I don't know. But I have to restate it.
Only from the established discourse, ideology and political position, there will be no true knowledge. It is not only a failure in philosophy, but also a failure in personality. For example, some Marxist Leninists believe that as long as they adhere to principles, they can win. But it's ironic - it just means total failure, and midgets. There is no shortage of dwarfs in the current anarchist environment. The police can flaunt their incompetence and then undermine the efforts of others with ignorance. Like the Trotskyists, even the individualists are like the Trotskyists. Its political stance is a patchwork of simple words.
Maybe my view is too negative, but this is what I have found for a long time: Enlightenment has created a hellish world, so that it can only rot in constant collapse, but can not grow new shoots.

anarchist and individualism in general. Lots of Novatore in there, and a good source of introductory material for stirnerism.

I see in the comments that everyone is once again excited about "fascism" again and talking about "Might is Right" by Redbeard. Overall, i thought it was a pretty troubling line of thought when was first reading the anthology, however that's how the world works in general. It's pretty much the opposite of an anarchist train of thought, however i appreciate having read the essay a while back because it helped me understand the things that people do a little better.

“Might is a fine thing, and useful for many purposes; for "one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right.”

Lies in how the moment you use might on others to impose your right, this isn't a right any longer, but a privilege, derived from violence. Such are the colonial relations. Indeed at the core this contradicts anarchist principles. This is where the very notion of right, as well, collapses as outside of being a universal postulate, is becomes capital. But how does it really stays universal in a world run by capital? The very existence of authoritarian politics negates its universality. Hence, "rights" are ultimately frivolous notions.

I haven’t actually read the book, I only know the basic gist of it, so maybe there’s something or other in there that I wouldn’t agree with.

That said, while I don’t support randomly throwing your might all over the place to crush or impose on others for no good reason, again, I see the basic message as a *descriptive* of the world, and not a prescriptive beyond: “this is how the world really works, so, if you don’t want others to impose on you, then you better have the means to push them back”. But then again, that’s just my interpretation. Do you know what I mean?

I agree with you about ‘rights’. I think a better descriptor than “might makes right” would be “power just... is”. In other words, it is what it is so the only pertinent question is then: what’re you gonna do about it?

Add new comment