FRR Audiobooks presents Off The Leash: Iconoclastic and Anti-Social Words

  • Posted on: 2 January 2018
  • By: rydra wrong

Listen Here:

There are innumerable splits between “anarchists.” Some disagree about economics, strategies of resistance, and a seemingly infinite number of isms. I find the most important split to be between social and anti-social. What need is there for social and anti-social anarchists to “work together.” This is something I just don’t understand. Anyone who seeks to build a new mass society is someone I have a fundamental and irreparable split with…in essence, we are enemies. People who believe that everyone is an anarchist are my enemies. People who can look at history and see progress towards freedom or compassion or social change that is desirable are my enemies. People who see human nature as freedom loving are my enemies. I see a few who burn with the desire for an ephemeral freedom and a huge majority of people who are not only willing but eager to submit themselves to society, a cause, a partner. People who refuse to acknowledge that slaves(including me and most reading this) are responsible for their condition, are my enemies. My enemies are the existing and the existent. As an anti-social anarchist I find myself constantly surrounded by my own enemies. Friends are difficult to find, harder to keep, and a rare find for one who chooses freedom as value.

So here are some writings from people who chose freedom as an arbitrary value and who refused to believe this could be given to them by a society, a person, anyone but themselves. This one is for anyone who has been alone and felt a rush of electricity run through their body and light them up with life.

Text at:
Introduction by anonymous
I Am Also A Nihilist by Renzo Novatore
Unbridled Freedom by Enzo Martucci

Voiced by rydra wrong, Kahar and Big Cat
Sound and Editing by Big Cat and rydra wrong

For stupid anarchy names, arbitrary values, and an ephemeral and eternal “no” towards the existent



Why do these people need to be your "enemy"? They're just dumb or deluded, for fuck's sake. Friend-Enemy is a binary, didja notice? But wait... I guess I'm the enemy too by now.

But who really is your Enemy, like is there any central or general figure, and what is this thing you call the "Existent", and does it have tentacles like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Yep they may be talking the talk but they're not walking the walk of individualists, there are no " enemies" and the " existent" is does not contain binary conflict.

Learn who you're talking about before posting sweeping assumptions. They have. There are. It does.

Hey dude, Renzo would find the talkers peurile capeesh?

Do you think "the talkers" wrote what they're reading? How do audiobooks work? Vaffanculo.

This just in: the Existent is a spook. And a pretty bad one, in the sense that unlike that the usual spooks it is a bad defined concept that can serve as ontological catchall... if used by more people than just an elite crowd of nihilist insurgent twenty-somethings who think they know everything about the world already.

To correct myself, it ain't just badly-defined, it hasn't been defined at all, afaik, and is rather a buzzword with a meaning that's only assumed as commonly-aceepted, where it's not.

A cheap confusionnist linguistic tool that State agents can use, in order to cause COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, in an attempt at remote-controlling an insurgency by stirring shit among its fighters.

this just in: you need to read more and learn more before embarrassing yourself further.…

"i don't understand what "l'esistente" means therefore it must not have a meaning at all! Stupid insurrectos! I will go onto the internet and post about it! *incomprehensible screeching*"

Ok well, that's cool, so I fucking dare you to give me a definition of "Existent" that is clear and exclusive, which means that it isn't some neologism used to replace one or two other notions that have been used for ages, like you know the "dominant order" or whatever.

If you're talking about "the order of what exists", then that's very blurry in some problematic way... Like is bulldozing a forest part of fighting against the Existent as well? Who knows. Many things exist in this world, many things are also made to exist, reified. What are you fighting for/against among these... everything?

"i don't wanna read things for myself, i'm gonna dare the more well read, mean insurrecto to explain things for me then that way i can disagree with them and save face but also learn what i don't reall understand because it's not in meme form…"

nice try, slacker.

Ok 18:04 then provide me with sources. I've read "At Daggers Drawn..." already (written by people who likely never used a knife against anybody) and even tho a lot of it I can agree with, their notion of the "Existent" was pretty vague. People don't fight for vague notions... unless they're (1) crazies or (2) under the influence of big mouths in their gangs of peers or -hang on to your seats- (3) under some chain of command..

So you want me to fight against something while I don't know you? Provide with a solid antagonism to fight against.

Here's some Renzo thrown against your Renzo.

read stirner, read novatore, jump straight to heidegger and spend some time with being and time, then read it again. then read levinas existence and existents. re-read at daggers drawn, but since you probably won't… it's not a mystical term. it can also be translated as "the existing" if that demystifies it for you. the existent is both that which exists and that which has qualities of existence. it's you, this unnecessary question, whatever compelled me to answer it, and the time i wasted answering it.

Sooo... It's all about phenomenology. As opposed to sociology, systems theory and the contamination of marxists, insurgents are to be fighting over a bunch of cutting edge concepts made up by conservative armchair phallocratic philosophers.

...and I thought Chomsky was problematic.

Ok so no thank you, I'll go back to sweet old Lucy Parsons and Stirner (who surely would have had a few good laughs at this "existent" spook!).

i disbelieve your poor reading comprehension. i disbelieve you. back to memes and marx with ya.

What is existent which does not have the "qualities of what exists"!? Why distinguishing blue, and blue?

Instances of the words "existing" and "existent" are few in Novatore's writings and statements. We was using it in the way of "the current" or "today's world". That doesn't mean much, and he made it clear thst whast he was resisting or in struggle with was the despotisms of collectivism, society's normative morals and rules, its prevailing order and the cops trying to enforce it. There was nothing esoteric in his use of the word, unlike in the text above.

As I said, I agree with most of "At Daggers Drawn...", but I'd recommend you people use a language that can be comprehended outside of your echo chamber, at least avoiding those silly terms that make you look like a tiny bunch of circle-jerking autists pitted in a fight against everything and everyone.

here ya go, friend and after that you might feel empowered enough to read whole books and think about them deeply instead of doing word searches on PDFs and via memes.

That sums it up perfectly dood

The 'existent ' is why you get out of bed in the morning duh,.,

But seriously there's volumes of theory explaining what makes people wake up in the morning to go to work, and none of it ever talked about any "existent".

Err, but the factory exists, and the due rent exists, and my employment and alarm clock exists, sooo, what's the confusion, or am I being obtuse?

And the tree outside your house exists. And yoiur loved one(s) exist. And the river nearby exists. And your internet connection exists. And birds and cats too exist. And... Like I said, there are great many things which exist. Only a portion of these make your daily reality miserable and oppressive, you silly.

this should also give you an understanding as to why at daggers drawn was so significant. but instead you've got a confusion boner that nobody wants to see.

"friends are hard to find, harder to keep" probably because this whole thing reads as thinly veiled pathology?

But that's too easy, to dismiss this as arrogant noise mixed with mental illness. So instead, better to ask where is the boundary of any union of individuals? When exactly do these "social anarchists" stop being a group of individuals and start "building a better society"?

Is it when they manage to keep friends? Is it when they band together against a threat? Is it when they squat or rent a space and try to meet more people? Is being an iconoclast towards others who really aren't that different from you and don't wield any more power, a desirable thing?

If so, hey, that's great. Have fun! I will of course, be laughing in your face when you wax philosophical about how relationships are so rare for such a special snowflake as you.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.