Paul Z. Simons on Immediatism Podcast

Two additional Paul Z. Simons texts have been made available on "An Anarchist Affection for Democracy" identifies the tension between anarchists who believe direct forms of democracy have utility and those, more nihilist-oriented, who believe it has no place. The latter group, as described by Simons, are more concerned with destroying all structures of power regardless whether they are horizontal, as direct democracy is described in this essay to be. "In a Moral Universe There Are No Anarchists" is Simon's expression of support for a fellow writer suffering under accusations from within the anarchist milieu.

Both of these essays and most of those previously recorded on Immediatism (included below) are available in the Ardent Press book, A Full and Fighting Heart, available from

An Anarchist Affection for Democracy part 1
An Anarchist Affection for Democracy part 2

In a Moral Universe There Are No Anarchists

Stolen Comrades (as El Errante)

John Brown's Body part 1
John Brown's Body part 2

Illegalism: Why Pay for a Revolution on the Installment Plan When You Can Steal One? part 1
Illegalism part 2
Illegalism part 3
Illegalism part 4
Illegalism part 5

Pure Black: An Emerging Consensus Among Some Comrades

The Organization's New Clothes

Continue to send feedback and requests to and your comment may be shared on a future episode.

There are 21 Comments

"In a Moral Universe There Are No Anarchists"
Without morality the human species would become severely diminished in population density from warfare, murder, rape and virus epidemics and approach the primitivist ideal, so sorta no wonder "anarchy" is not so "popular", folk have sensitivities and behavioral restrictions to maintain civil order that theorists somehow forget when formulating their perfect world.

with morality the human species has become severely expanded in population density with warfare, murder, rape, and virus epidemics and approach the ecocidal ideal, so sorta no wonder "anarchy" is not so "popular" ...........


Murder, rape and genocide are all 100% in violation of conventional morality. But you seem to be asserting morality somehow causes rape, murder, etc ...

How does that make any sense?

Surely you yourself think rape and murder are morally wrong. And surely you would feel guilty if you betrayed your partner(s) or did something to screw your friends over.

I get that there aspects of the dominant cultures’ morality that you don’t like, such as property laws, to make an example. But why can’t you admit that what you really want is just a “different” morality, instead of this absurd edgy-kid posture of wanting zero morality whatsoever?

“cause” is not the issue. we are here. and these things that you list, that you oppose, exist in this so called moral society, do they not? how is this morality doing combat these terrible things? has there not been enough time for the morality to really get working? are people simply doing the morality wrong? is it a game of @but it’d be so much worse if…” or other some such argument? explain how this moral society fares in comparison to an anti moral one.

They are just disgust inducing to many people including me. There is a difference between dislike/disgust and wrongness. Murder and rape also simply don't work as programmable human software being the inherent involuntary nature of them. You will see similar inferable patterns in non-human animals and they probably don't have a conception of right and wrong.

can you explain what "wrongness" is, since you use it in contrast?

here are my words:
empty pronouncements are not "correct" or on point in any way. you don't like sir einzige's points, that is entirely fine, but shitposting in response won't fly. either find a way to add value to the thread or just move along.
if you register and start building a reputation for your posts/name, then a bit more leeway will be allowed, since then people will have more context for your comments.

thecollective member .4

So what you're saying is that you have zero understanding of normative ethics, signified meaning, and consequentialism (including Stirner's egoism) but simply conclude that SirEinzige's baseless rant that these things are not "wrong," is correct because he's not anonymous and spends way too much time on anews posting incorrect nonsense instead of reading on the subjects he engages with? Okay, thecollective member .4. What does "wrong" mean in your world? How is wrongness defined? How then too is rape and murder not "wrong" when wrongness is defined by morality and legality? This should be good. I'll wait.

my agreement is not the issue here.
and your response (missing the point), is why mods rarely comment.

thecollective member .4

the point is that many years ago, ziggles was apparently recognized as having come to this discussion from a theoretically valid place. who decided that validity and on what grounds is lost to time but in this case, challenging the concept of intrinsic "wrongness" of concepts is probably almost always worthwhile from an anarchist perspective and he's just the pompous edgelord windbag to grind his axe over a point like that.

ps in case I haven't made this clear, i dislike him a great deal :)

There's nothing worthwhile or valuable about wasting time feeding trolls and humouring edgelord windbags. Imagine the abundance of time you'd have to do exciting and fulfilling things if you removed trolls and edgelords from your life. One might even be able to experience a little anarchy.

?!?!?! ... if you've "experienced a little anarchy" without trolls or edgelords, YOU TELL US WHERE RIGHT NOW!

Does not validate the existence of right and wrong. It simply demonstrates historically descriptive values that differ from culture to culture.

Stirner’s egoism has nothing to do with normative ethics. Stirner is personalistic in his ethics. You might be confusing with the other egoisms which Stirner is not a part of.

I’ll sit back and wait for your mental gymnastics on the existence of right and wrong.

my perspective is that everyone has their own, individual values. those values factor into one's choices, etc. i might call that a personal ethics. others might call that morals. the difference for me is that my values are my own, they do not come from the state, or the church, or society, or... morals tend to be seen as far more widespread and common - if not downright objective/universal. rape is an act that i find abhorrent, and i have in fact physically maimed someone that raped a friend. i still don't call it or think of it rape (or my response) in moralistic terms. some combination of experience, observation, intuition, emotion, intellect, etc all factor into my actions in any given situation. sometimes i look back and think, "damn, i wish i had done that differently." my next situation will hopefully incorporate that.

Learn what words mean. Not personal meanings but actual meanings. Then we can communicate without pineapple and silicones green splendidly.

Meaning has correspondant inter subjective value, there is no objective meaning onto itself, only inherited meaning with pan epochal weight behind it. There will always be a personality connected valuation.

You’re not one of those objective meaning and moralfags are you?

exactly what words in my comment did you not understand, pineapple brain?

I have criticized him a few times a while back, and also admired him for his anarcho adventure reporter antics, and reporting from his illegalist experience from a much better era.

Let's say he's still very thought-provoking to me in regards to the place of "anarcho grandpas" in contemporary anarchy... on what kind of life they can sustain, what shit they can do, as people at odds with all despotisms and determinisms. Could I potentially see myself as an El Errante? Fuck not. But at least that shows me a character to related to, within a still much-neglected narrative of dissent and self-assertion, through and against "time".

Also congrats to Cory for being such a tireless, overwhelming podcast reading machine ;)

Add new comment