What's New with LBC - Winter of 2017

  • Posted on: 10 January 2017
  • By: lbc

From Little Black Cart

This was a difficult quarter, and year, for Little Black Cart, with sadness at the end of relationships, misrepresentation by those who are supposed to be comrades, and frustration at the misdirection of many friends and allies. Happily though, the year ended with anticipation for an exciting new time of renewed vigor and opportunity.

We ended 2017 with
The East Bay Anarchist Bookfair, which continues to be thought-provoking and engaging. This one included remembrances of Ghost Ship and others, workshops that spanned a variety of topics from cyber-nihilism, Stirner, community, and the hermetic left, and tablers from the new to the usual.

2017 is also the end of LBC's big push (or, great experiment). We said, five years ago, that we were going to build a catalog of books by publishing a new anarchist book every month for five years. We have done just that. In addition we have published and helped start (as of this writing) at least seven new journal projects (Atassa, Attentat, BASTARD Chronicles, Dangerous Constellations, Hostis, Insurgencies, and LBC Review). We continue to help make large print-run newsprint papers available, and there are at least two projects planned for 2017. Now we are starting some new experiments. We hope that by June we'll have something to show you.

We have
a new PDF catalog available. We are looking for an Intern for later this year. If spending three months in the Bay, while making books, interests you Email us at info@lbc.And a big thank you to our out-going intern, Wil, new master of the prepress process!

New Titles

Anarchist Speculations: The works of John Moore

Ardent Press

John Moore was a UK green anarchist author who considered his work to be a series of anarchist speculations. This is a collection of his work and includes the long essays Lovebite, Anarchy & Ecstasy, and the Book of Levelling. Also included are shorter essays like The Primitivist Primer, Maximalist Anarchy, and Anarchism and Poststructuralism.

But unbeknownst to those immersed in classical anarchist traditions, a new, second-wave of anarchism (akin and indeed roughly contemporaneous with second-wave feminism) was stirring. The Situationists represent a convenient marker of the transition point, and serve as origin for the remarkable efflorescence of second-wave anarchism that is currently underway. Second-wave anarchism is still frequently not even recognised by anarchists and commentators who still cling to the idea that classical anarchism is the one and only true form of anarchism, even though first-wave anarchism was seen as moribund by Woodcock forty years ago. As a result, many outside the anarchist milieu are given the misleading impression that a) classical anarchism is anarchism, b) anarchism is therefore an historical phenomenon, and thus c) there are no current manifestations of anarchist praxis.

For more information - Anarchist Speculations - The writings of John Moore

Anarchy & Nietzsche - by Shahin

Elephant Editions/Ardent Press

As publishers we believe that anarchism is the lens by which the rest of the world is examined. This means that all of the ideas that are otherwise owned by the bourgeoisie are ours. To do with what we will. To consume and make our body and mind strong. Nietzsche is a figure that is both owned by our enemies and entirely ours for the taking.

This book, freely available on the Anarchist Library, attempts to do what I am not Man, I am Dynamite failed to do, integrate Nietzsche firmly into the anarchist tradition. This is a project we approve of unconditionally.

Scratch a political ideal and you can uncover a view of human nature. Many of the stories these enlightenment philosophers told are now deeply embedded in the “common sense" of capitalist culture. One is the idea that humans are “economic agents", citizen-consumers who spend our lives pursuing comfort, wealth, or profit – our “self-interest". Even more basic is the idea that we are “rational subjects" at all, individuals who can, or at least should, make decisions by consciously calculating from a range of options, and can be held responsible for those choices. Revolutionary movements against capitalism have also used these “enlightenment" views of psychology, developing them in their own ways. For example, Marxist strands of socialism took on the same ideas of economic self-interest, and also the idea that work or productive labour is fundamental to our being.
Nietzsche's psychological investigations attack many of these conventional myths. He says: if we look closely and honestly at how we are, we see that we are very far from being coherent rational subjects dedicated to the pursuit of peace, happiness and economic accumulation.

For more information - Anarchy & Nietzsche

For the freely available text

Feral Consciousness


The Repartee imprint is books that integrate ideas that are normally owned by the academy into the anarchist tradition. This book, Feral Consciousness, is a furtive attempt towards a new (anarchistic) understanding of both Freud, especially his attitude in
Civilization and Its Discontents and the Dionysian Nietzshe. Unlike other books that have covered similar topics in the past this one begins with a glossary of terms.

This is a solid attempt to build a bridge between the ideas of a set of dead European men and build a "Dionysian relationship--or what I call a rewild-feral, non-domesticated psychological state."

This book describes a way to retain/regain/reclaim what is Dionysian (instinctual, natural, passionate, joyful, authentic, free), using a method that is Apollonian (rational, unnatural, analytic). Language, first and foremost for example, is Apollonian in its structure. I hyper-exploit the Apollonian, which reveals itself as nihilist (I'll cover this more later), and arrive at the Dionysian. This journey is as follows, and I hope you find it as exciting as I do.

For more information - Feral Consciousness

Atassa: A Journal of eco-extremism

For many readers the first question they may ask upon picking up Atassa is "Where is the anarchy in this?" This is not the anarchism of an evolutionary (or revolutionary) transformation of this cold, bureaucratic world into a nicer, better world. It isn't about ideas. It is about something a lot more uncomfortable. It begins in the moment when Industrial Society and Its Future was translated into Spanish. The premise of that writing, much like the eco-extremist movement that Atassa journals, is that Civilization should be fought. The example of Ted Kaczynski is of what that fighting looks like: it isn't social, it isn't popular. It will probably end in failure and imprisonment.

ITS and other eco-extremists have denounced anarchism. But they have denounced it FROM within and not from the outside of anarchism. Their Wild Nature is similar to most other expressions of anti-civilization perspectives. Their anti-anarchism is an attempt to do what they did as anarchists better. Their anti-anarchism is similar to what post-left, second wave, and anti-state communists, are trying to say when they complain that anarchists often act as moralist, failure-as-a-form-of-life, close minded, parochial position. Often the position is the enemy of the goal and this is especially true as the failures of old strategies meet new (uncomfortable) approaches.

Eco-extremism is violent resistance that mimics the reflexive reaction of Wild Nature itself against what seeks to alienate and enslave all living and inanimate things. It is against the artificiality of modern society, and all that subjugates human instinct to a “higher end."

For more information - Atassa: Readings in eco-extremism

Elpis: The power of laughter is terrible and awful

This is a journal of pessimistic writing for an anarchist audience. It contains writings by pessimists and pessimist sympathizers... Pratt, Battaille, Zapfe, Noyes, Cioran, Leopardi, Popa, and Flueres explore the ramifications of, if not believing that things will get worse, then at least certainly not believing that things will get better. (Remember Virginia, pessimism is not the same thing as depression.)

The power of laughter is terrible and awful: anyone who has the courage to laugh is master over others, in the same way as anyone who has the courage to die.

For more information - Elpis Journal

Recent LBC Titles & Distro items

  1. Killing King Abacus collection
  2. Reprints from the UK Do or Die - Cracks in a Grey Sky
  3. 100 years of anarchist attacks - Smert Za Smert
  4. A collection of essays seeking the abolition of work - Abolish Work - Edited by Nick Ford
  5. Ardent Press Coloring Book
  6. To the Customers - The first severe critique of the Appelistas
  7. Blessed is the Flame - A great introduction to nihilism set in the context of concentration camp resistance
  8. Is Space the Place? Yes/No - A book that asks and answers the question of man & space travel

New LBC t-shirt

After several years we have finally got ourselves a silkscreen setup. Here is our first shirt.

Become an Intern

We have a living space (and good company) to offer someone who wants to intern with us and work on exciting anarchist projects for three months starting in late 2017. Contact us at
our primary email for more information and logistics.

Our new catalog

This year we decided to eschew a paper catalog (and have since changed our mind). All of our original titles, imprints, cover art, and descriptions are now available in
a nice and shiny PDF. Enjoy!

The rest

Want to help?

Are you in the Bay Area and would you like to help make LBC projects happen?
Drop us a line.

Are you a writer?

Send manuscript proposals to us at

Social Networking

Here is our dumb Twitter feed

Stupid Facebook

Politics is the enemy of anarchy, and it knows it.



lbc is the flip side of something like black flame; pure revisionist garbage.

The irony here is delicious.

it was also intentional.

Is Black Seed dead?

No. Issue five is planned for an April release.

Nietzsche was way too subjugated by aesthetics to ever be an anarchist, that's why he was a nihilist, the logical progression after poetical existentialism.

I like how you've got your own categories and an imagined progression between them in some closed system of reading and meaning only you have access to, like a child scribbling an imaginary language in crayon in a small notebook.

Well ideology hasn't clouded my perceptions, much like a child I suppose. Didn't Jesus say something about " watching the children play " , and he was a nihilist of sorts.

Good job meeting your five year goal!

"This was a difficult quarter, and year, for Little Black Cart, with sadness at the end of relationships, misrepresentation by those who are supposed to be comrades, and frustration at the misdirection of many friends and allies."

There are pieces of dog shit where your souls should be. God you are fucking horrible human beings and everyone knows it.

"souls", "god", and "everyone"? Wow, what new cult is it that hates LBC so much?

God is a horrible human being and Dog should have a shit on all our souls.

I mean *yours souls*.

Hypothetically speaking, God must be a psychopath.

I don't know if you're familiar with the failed mouse utopia lab experiment, but that's psycho God in a nutshell.

Also recall the Gnostics and their conception of the demiurge.

Yeah I am, but in a brief summary, now that you've reminded me I'll do some further in depth reading thanks. I did follow on into SimEarth computer hypotheticals based on Gaia theory, hah, my opposition to the tit-for-tat methodology was gleaned from that software, and other meditations concerning environmental sustainability, pretty basic stuff.
My knowledge of Gnostics is limited, except Santana's first album was called Abraxas after the leader of the spiritual half of their cosmos, which the Manicheans influenced . I speculate that whatever came out of Ur is the original progenitor of the ancient binary mindsets which fertilized most of the European belief systems right up to present days.

Nietzsche - what a waste of time (and paper)!

Nice to get a working consensus that Stirner shits all over Nietzsche and all those who quote Nietzsche approvingly are weak-minded and worthless!

All those in favor!?

lol you have to be fucking kidding me. it's so pathetic and hilarious what anarchists pretend Stirner wrote. His one book on one idea is quite mediocre.

what a brilliant and deep critique!

I should stoop to offer a brilliant and deep critique to someone whose contribution is "Stirner shits all over Nietzsche and all those who quote Nietzsche approvingly are weak-minded and worthless!"


Some anarchists who feel an adolescent need to appear as rebels even to other anarchists flock to Stirner precisely because he's obscure. His book and his single concept are valuable to a very limited extent and other thinkers (Nietzsche for example) have taken similar critiques much further. A sub-culture of the anarchist sub-culture pretends his book is important, pretends it contains powerful ideas, and pretends to construct a non-ideological ideology out of it, inadvertently also revealing that they either did not read or cannot understand it, because it's actually a boring trudge to read which offers one very basic critique of humanism which is quite trite today.

Nothing reveals a pretender to intellectualism faster than an outspoken penchant for Stirner. And really I think his book is fine. Just wouldn't make even a top 50 list of important contributions to...anything, really.

Don't talk to me or my ego ever again.

quantity of writing =/= quality of writing

Is in no way an indication of a lack of sophistication any more then an agreed upon great work is. Stirner's singular topic is nothing mere as it is a profound point that branches off into different points and lines of flight. He represents a historical shit post on all modern and classical qua mores, norms and reified value framework and stability. He is repetitive though that is heavily due to the expression of a new idea(or old one in new ways in a new context). There are various sub points that can be turned into bigger points. If you read closely, Stirner anticipates Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals when he brings up changing words tied to changing values. It's obvious now but someone had to make these points.

To understand Stirner's sophistication all you have to do is look at the qualitative intellects that were touched by that book. A simple wiki reading will do. As Herbert Read said his still stuck in the Western Gizzard because he tears apart it's foundations of "law order and limited freedom". The man asks the limited freedom loving liberal 'what's wrong with fucking your sister?' That right there is a favorite go to of mine. It's a cynical Socratic jab along with the big points that controlled freedoms and intellects are still coming to terms with. The same can be said of Nietzsche in his non recuperative form. Being obscure can be a sign that you have not been greatly recuperated to within an intellectual zeitgeist. All in all Der Einzige is more then a critique of humanism, it's a critique of the possibility of any stable reifed thought structure that makes any qua more/moral system of legitimacy possible.

Stirner may have made a single point but it's a powerful point that cuts to the bone of civilized belief and more structures and their legitimacy. Religious and the reified are now beginning to handle a world without God. Imagine how ready they are for Stirner's creative nothing where there is no structure or prescriptions.

I also wouldn't call Stirner obscure, he's more akin to a Niche intellect. I like to use the example of the metal band Venon. They are known on a niche level. They arguably laid the foundation for at least 3 modern metal genres, speed/thrash, black and death metal among other extreme genres. The nichey black metal is akin to egoism(and ultimately anarch/anarchy) where's the more popular thrash metal variants are akin to the likes of Nietzsche, the existentialists, POMOs and late modern art(which comes from Duchampian anti-art). His reaches speak for themselves.

Haha looks like that above comment touched a nerve in ziggy here. Posturing pseudo-intellectuals is fuckin' right, not that anyone who identifies as such is of much use to a serious anarchist praxis.


So then who might the real intellectuals be, by your estimation?

Touching nerves is the point of this forum, of discussion, or language itself, is it not? After all, yours was touched enough to compel you to write your own comment.

You seem bored, so am I. Not quite the same as getting worked up cause nobody talks about your boy Stirner.

Certain folks around here and certain anarchist tendencies have him on a pedestal. This other poster was suggesting that it might be a reflection of poor reading comprehension and Ziggy wall-texts in response. You don't see the humour?

I'm the above poster who ranted about Stirner fanboys. Thank you so much for illustrating my point perfectly. This is exactly what I was talking about: "All in all Der Einzige is more then a critique of humanism, it's a critique of the possibility of any stable reifed thought structure that makes any qua more/moral system of legitimacy possible." What a bunch of pseudo-intellectual fluff. It reminds me of the comic where a student states "So you see, it's a social construct," then sits smugly. His peers encourage him to go with his analysis, bring it together, get to a point beyond the obvious thing we've already all accepted...to which he balks, "I thought the point of this game is that we recognize something as a social construct and then we don't have to talk about it anymore." Except with Stirner fanboys, it's the "spooks" we have to recognize so that we can be non-ideological (serious LOL at the practically new-wave-self-help turn THAT takes, magically thinking away repressive structures because they are "just spooks!") Also this defense of Stirner is posted in earnest by someone bearing the moniker "Sir Einzige." Too perfect, practically self-satirical, but I know you're serious so I feel quite embarrassed for you.

You sir, or madam or preferred pronoun, are a breath of fresh air!

But you did not explain why. Can you?

The statement you're referring to is immediately followed by an illustration by analogy and an explanation of the very simple ideological thinking that follows the line of thought that starts with fluff. What do you need clarified? Be specific.

Same poster here. Sorry about the confusing "thinking following line of thought phrasing"--I'm a little distracted.

But really I'm suspect you're trolling me here with your pretending to not understand the critique. Do some work to contribute to the conversation genuinely and maybe I'll feel like devoting some more attention to this, but this kind of objection feels insincere.

To assuage your troll paranoia. That's on you.

Yeah like I said you could contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way instead of asking for explanations over and over. But I gave you a few new ones so let's see if you can work your way up to some input here. Otherwise I'll just assume you're still trying to waste time, and I won't let you succeed in that further.

...on the internet. Gotcha.

If you keep assuming I'm trying to waste your time, then I always will be wasting your time. Like I said, your perceptions of my writing aren't exactly my responsibility.

What does this even mean? If you're not contributing to our conversation, I don't have any more patience for conversing with you.

Although, damn, you did get me wasting my time explaining to you again. Nicely done.

Wasn't really my intent to waste your time. I can't help your time insecurities, nor your tendencies to see trolls behind every internet post. As I said, that's on you. It's perhaps unrealistic to expected others to write in a way which will not offend your sensibilities. In fact I would say that these things which you percieve as a waste of your time, or lacking in sufficient confirmation of your biases, is actually a lack of appreciation on your part stemming from a life of relative ease or access. Who else but a child of relative privilege would assume such self importance, or display such little self awareness?

Are you interested in contributing to this conversation about the role of Stirner in the American anarchist milieu or not? Are you capable of contributing?

I'm still here, yes? But you're incapable of receiving anything I write when you keep presuming incapability. You are blatantly admitting that you are arguing in bad faith.

Other than telling me I'm posting wrong, what have you contributed to this conversation?

If you look at the recent post from "Sir Einzige" below, you can see a contribution to this conversation. He's in this discussion. You're not. You're trolling. Acting oblivious about that is either an attempt to keep trolling or, much sadder, an indication of how little you understand discourse. Counting the words of people's posts to tell them how many it took them to say something dis-satisfactory to you, repeatedly asking for explanations and then ignoring the ones you get, non-sequitur responses and criticism for listing examples without page citations....pathetic. Done talking to you now, good riddance.

I'm going to pick up Stirner and slam him into your hands repeatedly until you can't post anymore, comrade.

If you know what I mean.

Hahaha, I like the nautical analogy, Stirner, stern i.e. the rear of a vessel, the ass, fisting, analogy etc, etc, I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds that political discussion inexorabily leads towards BDSM fetishism, hahaha. I'm bored also after doing manual labor.

Stirner slams comrades into YOU.

The quote wasn't directly addressed. The quote was about humanism, morality & institutions founded upon such concepts. What was offered in response was unrelated. Just an empty multi-sentence insult with one snark-observation.

That some people take a "very simple" reading of the source content, is not the fault of the source content. Should we blame Marx for Stalin?

Yes, we should blame Marx for Stalin, partially, and that it was the root authoritarianism of Marxist ideology that ultimately led to authoritarian Marxist regimes has been a basic anarchist idea since Marx was still living and writing, so I'm stumped why you'd even ask that question rhetorically, even if you disagree with that critique.

I did respond to the sentence more fully in a post I was typing as you were typing, though, and why I called it fluff. I was snarky in my original post but the points were not unrelated. That morality is reified social activity turned against its own agents is a widely accepted notion, and many, many thinkers have expressed it, built on it further analysis, and dug to strip away the ideological blinders and find the actual flows of power and resistance behind every law. It has been the project of Marxists, anarchists, structuralists, post-structuralists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc, etc, etc. One could not study any humanities discipline or social science without being familiar with this concept today. As a very simple and rudimentary expression of this important notion, it is interesting as a relic, an influence, and the anarchist subculture making something of an anti-hero of Stirner as a figure is indicative of something bizarre, something that smacks of ressentiment and a need for some alternative, "fuck you, dad" founding father figure for anarchism.

And this kind of treatment is harmful to the subcultural waters we are stuck swimming in, however much we wish them away with insults. Look, for example, at the magazine Modern Slavery. If you read AJODA during the McQuinn days, you know it was often quite interesting for its time. You also know that there was never an adequate explanation of what makes "non-ideological" thought NOT an ideology except vague references to "critical thinking" and Stirner. Well, apparently McQuinn never figured it out, and, sad to say, now runs a fanzine devoted to Stirnerite Ideological Thinking, mostly covering chest-thumping about how great Stirner was and chastising academics for misreading Stirner. Of course, Stirner fanboys insist that their thought cannot be ideological by definition, because they are against ideology per se, and so it must be so. Ah, the magic tricks of tautological argumentation.

Nice to see somebody finally taking all these Stirner-fanboys down a notch. That pretentious pseudo-intellectual bullshit is getting seriously fucking stale. It's not just the trendiness, with everyone from edgy 18-year-old egoists to edgy, 18-year-old tankies, it's the intellectual laziness it engenders; allowing any and every phenomenon or concept anybody doesn't like to be branded a "spook".

It took you sixty words to say "Stirner is bad, but I can't articulate why." Yet you accuse other of pseudo-intellectualism.

You're not even following the conversation. The people you're addressing have repeatedly expressed that Stirner is OK, not bad, and explain what the problem with his fanboys are. Yet you expect us to bend over backwards to explain it to you yet again simply because you like pretending you don't get it. Disingenuous participation in a conversation is a kind of pseudo-intellectualism as well.

I don't think writing a few sentences constitutes bending over backward. Can you at least provide me the timestamp of the post I've apparently missed?

Here are the sentences immediately following the one you say you don't understand:

"What a bunch of pseudo-intellectual fluff. It reminds me of the comic where a student states "So you see, it's a social construct," then sits smugly. His peers encourage him to go with his analysis, bring it together, get to a point beyond the obvious thing we've already all accepted...to which he balks, "I thought the point of this game is that we recognize something as a social construct and then we don't have to talk about it anymore." Except with Stirner fanboys, it's the "spooks" we have to recognize so that we can be non-ideological (serious LOL at the practically new-wave-self-help turn THAT takes, magically thinking away repressive structures because they are "just spooks!") "

What do you need clarified? Be specific.

See 15:41 response above.

I got u bro, 15:54

Personally I think the burden of explanation should be on people who post fluff, not their critics. So let's talk about the line in question:

"a critique of the possibility of any stable reifed thought structure that makes any qua more/moral system of legitimacy possible."

How would you explain that to someone who you cared about convincing? I'm amenable to arguments that complex and innovative thought sometimes requires complex and innovative language. I enjoy, say, Deleuze and Guattari for that reason. (As an aside, Stirner was less amenable to this approach and sought to write in language commoners and laymen would recognize, which goes some way to explaining his use of the bible for reference, but this is a digression.) But I really think what is being expressed here is not complex.

To cut to the chase, my read of this is that morality (or any other form of authority) has no innate grounding per se. That's easy to say and easy to understand. That's not a complicated idea, it's not unique to Stirner, it's commonly accepted among most thinkers we would take seriously today. It's a trope of an idea even in popular culture. When you strip away the fluffy language, we are left with something that is common sense in our milieu, and which the book in question does a poor job of explaining in the current context.

Where we go from that assertion is of course a more interesting one, but it's one that Stirner fanboys follow up only with more fluffy language, often with obviously nothing behind it. It leads to all kinds of weird sophistry on this board, for example.

Where you have to retype wordy pomo philosophy text that cascades down the screen in front of you, and call it Guattari Hero. You'd probably be good at it.

Unfortunately for me you will never accomplish the things you want to do, and so I'll never get to play such a game.

Stirner is a marginal figure, which I do not mean pejoratively, really. It's just bizarre the fixation pockets of the anarchist subculture have with him. He is most important for the singular influence he had on more important thinkers--lots of them, yes, the above fanboy is correct, but still, those thinkers were and are more important to study, and their commentary on Stirner and why he influenced them. Marx included, just to scandalize the "post-left" a bit ;)

I truly believe most of these people have not read the book. For fun, ask an IRL Stirner fan to explain to you his position on race, on "negroids" and "mongoloids." I'm sure a Stirner scholar could teach me something about what he "really" meant about historical development beyond the now offensively archaic terminology, but most anarchists don't even know that stuff is in the book, because they haven't read it. They have read a summary or a pamphlet somewhere that just said Stirner was such a badass, destroyed Marx, there's just one smug drawing of him, he critiqued morality before Nietzsche (as if coming first were a virtue in and of itself), etc, but they haven't read the book. Again, I don't mean this as a petty insult. I reference lots of thinkers who I have not yet read. But let's be honest: Stirner is not much of anything special, and if you read the book and truly think about it on your own (erm, uniquely?), follow its lines of implications, look at its context and its influence, I think you will agree with me that it's a very unlikely artifact to hold up as so important.

I don't really mean to insult people who like or draw influence from Stirner. That's fine. Keep in mind that I am posting all this in response to someone saying, quite snottily, that Nietzsche was shit compared to Stirner. That's really silly, immature thinking. To use the other fanboys own analogy, it's like getting into Darkthrone (or another 2nd wave bm band) then finding out about Venom, and then insisting that Darkthrone is some vntrve bleakness bc Venom is the trve shit. Everyone knows that 1) Darkthrone slays and 2) Venom is only interesting as a proto-bm influence and 3) when you pretend Venom is your favorite or the most important bm band, we all know you're posturing for cultural capital via obscurity of reference and the harder you play that card, the sillier you look.

an honest critique, or making hierarchies of supposed categories? i don't care whether miles davis is better than donald byrd, i like both.

i've read stirner, and it overlapped with nonduality in nietzsche, laozi, various indigenous cultures, and my own personal psychedelic experiences.

relations are all there are, and all we have is now.

what's the point in taking parts of lived relations in order to turn those parts into categories?

oh, and maybe provide some quotes, or cite some pages for context instead of making assumptions about what people read?

None of this even seems like a response to anything I've said. I've said that Stirner is was influentially important and that I personally think his book is fine, but that the degree of focus he gets in a specific subculture of the anarchist subculture is bizarre, annoying, and harmful. I've given examples when appropriate. I'm not going to go pull books off my shelves to find citations you obviously won't look up if this is the quality and depth of the non-responses you are able to offer. Whether it's your intention or not, this is obviously a waste of my time if you respond to my earnest explanations with a couple of off-topic sentences and then ask me to go do research for you.

Also, "an honest critique or making hierarchies of supposed categories...." What? Does this kind of sentence mean something to you? Your turn to explain, because it looks like more really bad fluff. If you want to critique my argument, shit or get off the pot.

what the discussion about stirner seems to avoid is about whether relations are the source of 'beings' or whether 'beings' are the source of relations. in the non-duality of indigenous peoples, lao tzu and our deep experiences, 'being' is illusion.

when the participants in a discussion forum are a mix of those who believe in the 'reality of being/s' and those who don't [who believe that those things identified as 'existing things' are 'spooks'] then the discussion is going to be confused by the non-declaration of which mode of understanding; relations-based or being-based one is coming from.

if participants could upfront declare in their comment whether they are (currently) (a) coming from dualist materialism and putting 'being' before relations, ... or (b) coming from non-dualist relationism and putting relations before material being, it could clear up the root source of disagreement, particularly since the psycho-demographics are probably about 80:20 a:b.

the (b) participants (myself and evidently yourself), as you say, are not going to see any sense in putting things into categories and ranking the members. in fact, the building of categories depends on a logical flaw wherein one must presume the existence of a category in order to gather together 'presumed members' to measure their 'things-in-themselves common properties' [ignoring their unique situational inclusion in an interdependent relational web] to use this as the basis of defining their FIXED identities [male, female, black, white, russian, american], ...'fixed identity' which is in turn the source of 'identity politics, ... none of which makes any sense in the relational view since relational forms do not possess 'fixed identities' [there is no thing-in-itselfness in the relational view and thus no basis for 'identity politics'].

upfrontness about coming from (a) or (b) would eliminate a lot of confusion about root source of differences in view.

This is a good example of how a bad reading of Nietzsche can make someone into a malfunctioning chatbot of a person.

Imagine if, instead of writing Nietzsche and Philosophy, Deleuze reacted to Nietzsche's ideas by immediately sending letters to everyone he knew all like "I NEED TO KNOW WHETHER YOU BELIEVE I WROTE THIS LETTER OR WHETHER RELATIONS WROTE ME!"

there is no either/or in declaring (a) dualist assumption or (b) non-dualist assumption since the (b) assumption is to the (a) assumption in the manner that a polynomial of degree two relates to a polynomial of degree one [Poincare]. in other words rectangular absolute space (a) is a special case of curved relational space (b) as when the curvature 'goes to zero'.

if david bohm is going to participate in a discussion forum with isaac newton, no doubt bohm has good powers of addressing physical phenomena even if he stays within the simpler confines of the dualist split apart space and time framework of Newtonian physics. But if he slips into the non-dualist relational mode of understanding without declaring that he is doing so, ... or if he declares it but no-one else pays attention and they stick to the Euclidian framework, then confusion reigns as different people discuss the same phenomenon coming from different modes of understanding. Bohm was one of those who pointed out that categories make no sense in the relational mode of understanding. Meanwhile, it is popular to believe that categories (humans, species, races, nations) have meaning (this is the assumption in (a)) when they have no meaning in the (b) mode of understanding.

as Einstein said, the relational view does not replace the materialist view, it is an enlargement that includes the materialist view in the manner that the view from a mountain includes the former view from a foothill. the view from the foothill does not 'go away', it is included in the view from the mountain.

what's the point of debating 'what is going on' in terms of 'what things are doing' if some of the participants believe that relations prevail over 'things' and others believe the inverse?

We gave up trying to talk TO you a long time ago emile. Now we just talk about you to the other visitors of this site, like a tour guide at the zoo.

To mockingly reference zoos in your petty quarrels.

what better basis for herd formation than the conspicuous rejection of that which the 'in' group views to be politically incorrect? it can bring em in by the busload.

you have spoken well. it is a shame that your anonymous sign-in blocks you from receiving full credit for the wisdom of your 'anarchist' comments.

It's not my fault, though. It's these damn relations. Like someone said, don't doer-deed it, dude, duh! Of course I "am" not like that guy when "being" is not any "thing" such to speak of!

What's the point of debating "anything" in terms of "any terms" if one of the participants is "emile" and others are anyone else in the world?

1. Venom isn't obscure.
2. Venom is a wonderful band.
3. Sarcofago would be a better example of an obscure early black metal band.
4. I agree with the rest of your comment in its entirety.

I now realize you brought up venom because eichmann did.

I still like your comment. Stirner is not the first, last, best, or worst anti-foundationalist.

We could go back to old yigga Lao and even he might not be the first. The point is spacing out relative originality when the time called for it. In the Post Hegelian epoch Stirner stands above all the rest. No one in 150 plus years has bettered him on the same level that he bettered his young Hegelian peers.

Necrogenesis from Wales & Obscurito from Estonia predated all these guys by at least six months to a year, respectively.

And how do you define importance? Are you scaling it for ideological influence? Cause that's not how I do it or at least I include other avenues of importance based on influencing the right people as well as relative originality.

I've read the book twice and I know those non issue controversial parts that you speak of( he also uses the term Mohammedans as well as describe Easter civilization as porcelain and backed up compared to the west-which I take as a proto-anti civilization analysis). The reason why Stirner retains OG status for me is that much of the subsequent existentialist pomo stuff does not say anything qualitatively different then what he said in more formative ways. Also, again, their academic currency does not impress me in the least, usually that's a sign of dominant discourse recuperation.

I don't consider Freddy to be shit, he's a strong secondary to my primary Max as far as Western context thinkers go. He took a very interesting part of Der Einzige and turned it into The Geneology of Morals. He obviously makes for pleasurable reading of well styled writing(though Stirner does have his moments). As to the analogy, I think the Stirner/Venom comparison is about apt in terms of an example of qualitative influence. Many would also disagree that 2nd wave black metal is simply better. If we are using wiser popularity a better example would be thrash metal. What makes Venom matter is that they arguable were MAJOR figureheads for at least 3 genres of metal(thrash, black and death). I don't consider more popular bands like Slayer to be better simply because they get more capital and make Venom the supporting band at a concert. The later BM bands are more akin to Armand and Novatore.

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.