Add new comment

... in his famous book "God and the State", how he always avoided dealing with socialists as they aren't people that are talkable. Apparently this trend hasn't changed, as of course SOCIALISTS NEVER FUCKING CHANGE!

"What we are talking about is the modern concept of anarchy (classical 19th century anarchism), which very much is an outgrowth of modern socialism, whether you like it or not. It's just a fact. Sorry if that offends you."

The modern concept of "anarchist" is very blurry in its origins. It is assumed to be related to the Luddites and the early labor strikes of the 19th century, but also as an insult to people depicted as flaming individualists who can't follow the herd. Stirner, Armand, Libertad and Parsons were all late 19t century thinkers and fighters of anarchism who rejected socialism, and they cannot be ignored for how central they are to later anarchist theory.

Then you got turncoat anarcho-librarians like Kropotkin who form the start have been collaborating with liberal socialists even if at some point they asserted their ideological "edge" as a band apart, the anarcho-socialist. That is the rotten root from where this whole crowd of socialists dressed in black is from.

Now mark my words as I won't repeat that...

As anarchist I negate the importance of social change to my well-being, as society is my enemy, and the enemy of all life. It is the Leviathan that oppresses me, and oppresses the millions that do not fit with its normalized models and schemes. As anarchist I always was anti-conformist, beyond just "antifascist", as conformity is the tool of subjugation of the individual to the masses.

Only a conspiracy of individualists (or union or egoists?) can be my true collective, and my base.