Don’t ask me. I gave up trying and now self identify as crypto-fascist. Seems like less work and hassle for everyone.

Mother Earth hates your gender reveal parties, too.

Sadly the most common type of Stirner. My personal least favorite is the also very popular Stirner as messiah.

I’ve read bits and pieces of this and it’s a worthwhile text for any anarchist that’s interested in deleuze.

Its author is Andrew Culp, organizer of the Quiver project. Despite the academic nature of the project and content, he’s been very open to interventions and just seems like a genuinely cool person from my interactions with him.

We have a pear tree with putrid smelling blossoms pollinated by blow flies...

You bring up a great point. There is certainly a large emotional component to one’s beliefs and the actions they take.

I consider the exclusively sociopolitical/anthropological bent of most anarchist discourse severely limiting in its analysis and potential for implementation.

While they’re not widely read among @ folks and can be overly academic, there’s some good bits and pieces to pull from post structuralists that have incorporated a psychological aspect in their critique. Assuming we are all rational agents in our daily lives is obviously a delusion best left to economists and social scientists.

I think it's a ploy to revive the visage of moral superiority so that post-leftists can say, "Look at me, I'm so ethical!" while maintaining their edgy title of amoralist.

Yes. And it annoys the shit out of me.

We should say outright that people should not decide for others, no wordplay necessary.

Exactly. Most people are ok with this until disagreement arises. Then comes the justifications for why their perspective is more ethical and therefore deserving of imposition on others.

Is it worse that “police killing blacks is a crime against humanity” was apparently in question, or that an “international inquiry” needed to investigate to deem it as such?

Either way, fucked up headline.

Here in uhmerica left and woke are synonymous at this point. As opposed to the racist right. Zero nuance. It’s the forces of good vs evil, and all that...

Individualist is too broad for me so I’ll exclude it, but ancaps, mutualists and the like all share the distinction of owing their limited relevancy and scope of discourse to the internet and a small corner of academia. Outside of online spaces, the only anarchists one is likely to engage with are ancoms, and I see ancom as the default ideology associated with anarchism by the general public, at least where I live.

Not saying there aren’t other varieties of “out” anarchists in meat space, but all the agonizing over adjectives seems to happen much less than online. Personally, most people I know (non-anarchists) all identify me as an anarchist, and that’s enough for them and fine with me.

Because west leftist 'materialism' has mangled the word to have hocus-pocus connotations as part of their often-explicit progressivist civilising mission, and that needs undoing.

I couldn’t agree more. I was reading cosmology as having scientific aspect, and that’s what I personally take issue with. I prefer mythologies or just stories because they’re self conscious of they’re representational nature. The objectivity tied up in the materialismis you mentioned is wholly fiction and entirely lacking awareness.

I don't think there is any scaling up being done - I'm talking about small decentralised heritage. Not sure how to convey this better, which is unfortunate.

Maybe I should have said “out” instead of “up”? Either way, I read cosmology and infer an origin story and often eschatology. To encompass global anarchists, that seems broad to me.

In general, I’m inclined to lean into a view that anarchism is often a barrier to anarchy, and lessening attachment to history along with the urge to create conceptual associations is beneficial.

Regardless, it’s an interesting idea, I appreciate you sharing and I’d definitely read more when you build on it. I’m very much in favor of engaging with differing viewpoints and I tend to put more effort into self critique than I do outward.

...feeling that it could still be stopped and that your actions can impact that.

To frame this position as anything but absurdly arrogant is beyond me. That humans can look at the world around us and still hold such self aggrandizing beliefs...

That’s a great single. Creature is a song I can listen to any time, never gets old.

There’s nothing in that space that interests me. Just the same old reductionist politicking. Not that there’s not a lot of that here, but there’s also good faith and thoughtful conversations happening on a broad variety of anarchist adjacent topics and with a variety of perspectives.

What’s your vision for it? What do you hope to accomplish?

Basically because the stories we tell each other make up the way we perceive the world and act in it. That’s what cosmologies come down to for me.

Then why not simply say “we can tell anarchist stories to inspire us as anarchists”?

They don’t need to know we exist or that we think of ourselves in those terms for us to act in affinity with them and be them.

Regardless of their continued existence, we can carry the mantle that comes from our shared affinity.

Since the beginning of antagonism to all authority, we have kin all across the world and all through history who have worked with us.

These statements certainly give me a feeling of some transcendent value, but maybe it’s just the rhetorical flourish. I used the term religious as the piece certainly invokes a faith or belief in this state of “affinity” that you’re positing connects “anarchists” across time and space as “kin”. This is either a metaphysical relationship, as living and dead strangers all over the world would not be related otherwise, or the language you’re using is meant to be emotive rather than explicative.

I do think this is a nice idea, but I don’t know why we need such abstract and far reaching connections. The power of many cosmologies is that they’re shared amongst small groups of people that could literally be considered communities. Scaling cosmologies (or stories, or myths) up loses some of the sense of place and time that grounds them and gives them power, but that’s just my opinion.

Yes. I like this.

It’s a nice idea in the feel good sense. There’s definitely grounds for critique regarding the metaphysical assumptions required to construct such a concept, but my question would be why is it beneficial to create the construct in the first place? Why should uniques desiring anarchy have interest in creating conceptual transcendental unities? It feels very religious to me.

Wouldn’t surprise me. Bellamy critiques the use of the concept of domestication. Camatte writes texts leaning into it.

Definitely. I’m always on the lookout and glad to spread the word.

Was thinking the same. Whether Stirner is/isn’t a nihilist was a topic of conversation in my study group recently. I tend to think whichever conclusion one draws, it is more in the reader’s orientation to nihilism than anything specific in Stirner’s actual work.

Heard this podcast yesterday as it popped up as a recommendation. I listened to a handful of episodes (they’re short and I had a very long drive).

Not exactly my cup of tea but the host does a good job of introducing complex ideas for the philosophy-curious.

Can you say heterogeneous 5x fast?

Now homogeneous...

Nice work Cory, that was a good episode and a mouthful.

One track. 29m29s of blackened crust from galicia.

Aside from the obvious bullshit humanist construct of human/animal dualism that this question implies? Nothing.