Log in

17 October 2006 @ 10:50 am
Morality is defined as an imperative without an end. It is violated ontology - nonsense. Morality boils down to a mistake in grammar.
17 October 2006 @ 09:58 am
Why is every alleged 'anarchist' I meet some form of socialist or, at most, a libertarian? Why must men who reject the State and Society seek to construct another method of legitamizing human action? Why seek 'justice'? Why fight for 'freedom in the abstract', instead of the only realizable freedom - your own?
Stirner and Nietzsche influenced anarchists, like Tak-Kak, Jules Bonnot and Renzo Novatore (as well as the insurrectionist Stirner himself) have my regard, indeed I might consider myself an Illegalist Anarchist (since all Egoists are criminals by definition) but whenever I mention it I am confronted with such ludicrous opinions of anarchism that I am disinterested. Hell, the 'Universal Chaos' idiocy of the herd is closer to anarchism of really individual persons than the lemonade-sea man-worship of the socialists. Society is my enemy, as are all powers that demand my obedience and exclude my individuality - try to strip me of my Egoism. A 'war of all against all' is of course true, is always true, and others only cease to be my enemies when their power no longer challenges mine and becomes my property.  Whether this is by coming to an understanding and a union of purpose through 'peaceful' means or by raising the black flag and slitting throats matters little to me.

I will end this with a quote from Renzo Novatore which I think accounts for the true logical carrying through of anarchism, as the manifestation of the political nihilism of the ego.

"Anarchy is not a social form, but a method of individuation. No society will concede to me more than a limited freedom and a well-being that it grants to each of its members. But I am not content with this and want more. I want all that I have the power to conquer. Every society seeks to confine me to the august limits of the permitted and the prohibited . But I do not acknowledge these limits, for nothing is forbidden and all is permitted to those who have the force and the valor.
Consequently, anarchy, which is the natural liberty of the individual freed from the odious yoke of spiritual and material rulers, is not the construction of a new and suffocating society.' It is a decisive fight against all societies-christian, democratic, socialist, communist, etc., etc. Anarchism is the eternal struggle of a small minority of aristocratic outsiders against all societies which follow one another on the stage of history."
17 October 2006 @ 09:02 am
I do not have the urge, or the collected thoughts, to write out a thorough description of Egoism, so I thought I'd give a brief summary of what it is.

In a general historical concept, a person who goes about in a selfish manner, and a pure egoist would of course be entirely selfish. An 'ethical' egoist would argue that one ought to be egoistic, although this becomes a moot point if one is egoistic because 'right' and 'wrong' fall back before my will. A 'psychological' egoist insists that all action is neccesarily egoistic, and is right to a point except that the domination of concepts and feelings can cause me to take actions I rationally would not consider, and stop from actions I would undertake. Neither of these describe me.
Rational egoism posits that it is irrational, even nonsensical to be anything but an egoist since one is an - EGO. I am myself, and all 'standards' and 'rules' are mine - there is no logical way in which they can be 'above' me since I am the one who gives them substance, who decides to act on them and creates their value to myself. I may act or believe in any number of things, but I posses no morality or ideology since I can know no 'fear' of the immaterial, of the ghostly world - my fear is from power alone, and my will the sole arbiter of 'right'.
Egoism is a neccesary outcome of existential nihilism, since the existential nihilist understands two concepts: the nonsensicality of external values and the unique, perspective based nature of existence. Existential nihilism is also a neccesary fact, which is impossible to contradict by any statement (arguments in this veign may be found for Methodological Individualism in Austrian Economics, though some of them take an arbitrary moralistic position).
Stirner's take on individualism and nihilism is unique because he is far more logical and consistent than, for example, Dosteivsky. Dosteivsky's nihilism is predicated upon a godless Universe, but from an Egoistic perspective it is irrelevant whether 'God' exists. The same is true of existential nihilism, although for the reason of logical incoherence of deontological values and not for the reason of perspectivism, that god or no god, 'morality' is bunk.
The word 'Egoism' is used not in the crass sense of asocial selfishness (though an egoist may be that, it is a property, not the definition of egoism) but is related to it etymologically. 'Egoists' in common venacular are 'selfists', 'self-servers' and not interested in intercourse except to further their own views. An Egoist in my sense does precisely the same, although he may take interest in others and - since he sees the world as his property - may regard any number of things as valuable to him and worth his attention. Egoism also differs from other 'philosophies of life' in that it is neither normative nor a set of rules by which one can choose to conduct oneself - aside from the logical basis of Egoism everything the Egoist values, does and seeks is up to him and really unrelated to this view of reality. An Egoist may have a thousand gods, I am an atheist. So long as they are HIS gods and not 'above' him but simply used by him, he is as certainly an Egoist as myself. Egoism has an excellent connotation when broken down because it can mean selfism, not simply a 'universal' philosophy of 'selfishness' such as Objectivism, but that it is an 'ism', a 'cause' of ME, of the Ego. Ego is not exalted 'in general' by the Egoist as it is by the Objectivist or Satanist, MY individual ego is the arbiter and creator of things. It is a 'philosophy' that is totally unique to everyone. In fact, an egoist may not agree or be disinterested in my logical argumentations for the truth of egoism and may simply act as an Egoist all the same. He has no idols and acts according to his pleasure, and does not give a whit whether it is 'true'. He is just as much an Egoist as I am.
15 October 2006 @ 03:35 am
A note for those who know such things: Some people have told me I write in Stirner's style too much. Stirner's style is not really that of the 'Ego and Its Own' in general, but although I admit a similarity to that book I actually am more influenced in my writing style by Nietzsche, Aristotle and SE Parker. The first two were formative and of major import to me when I first began writing philisophical bits, and I had a tendency to phrase arguments in a bizarre, abrupt and sometimes hackneyed style keyed both for logical detail and for expression of my personal emotions. That this is like Stirner is probably because Stirner wrote for the same sort of reasons.
That I owe much to Stirner for formal argument and deriving examples of the logical consequences of egoism (as opposed to the layman or moralist's conception of what it entails) I certainly make use of Stirner, and I simply love the book itself. I do differ in Stirner in some formulation, I build an Aristotilian logic of existential neccesity for the fact of egoism (similar to SE Parker's view of it) and take much to LA Rollins' work on amoralism.
And if the end you believe that I have still plaguerized Stirner - what of it? His work is mine, to do with as I please. I'll not be stopped by your ghosts of literary criticism.
15 October 2006 @ 03:14 am
What Am I?
If I have any ism it is egoism.
Not in the sense of Rand or even Epicurus.
Ego in the sense of me. Selfish.
Not selfishness neccesarily, but selfness.
I act as I see fit, for all will and power comes from me.
It would be absurd to say that I 'advocate' this system, since I am only concerned that I actualize my will and that if you do not actualize your will you are the more foolish for that, but it does not trouble me.
It is not in my mind that other people be 'correct' in thought except as far as it might help me.
I do not claim that I think I should actualize my will, only that I neccesarily do as I am my will and everything comes from me in this manner - that I reject spooks and delusions as false is simply a fact which leads me to act as I choose.
It is best to say - I am an egoist, because I am an ego, and I know it.
I am conscious of what I am.
I am myself.
I am nothing.

God is not possible, the word is nonsense.
And even if 'God' existed, he'd gain no reverence from me.
Perhaps fear, as I fear the power of a gun or an angry mob. But no sanctity.
If God wishes to retain his throne, he had better be prepared to defend it.


Why bother to convert the Christian, would you have him be a Humanist?
By God, man, I'd rather have a Christian.
"When the last Puritan has disappeared from the earth, the man of science will take his place as a killjoy, and we shall be given all the same old advice but for different reasons." was Robert Lynd's prediction and "our Atheists are pious people," is what Stirner observes.
'One must not kill' says the priest (unless the Church or God approves), 'One must not kill' decries the Humanist (unless the State or Morality approve).
And thus each give out certain 'rights' to people as 'children of god' or 'humans as such' or 'rational animals', each denies the individual ego. 'Freedom!' cries the liberal, but if the egoist seeks the freedom to slit the libertarian's throat, suddenly he is a criminal and in that sense not 'free'.
Let the Liberatarian cease to be a libertarian, and be an egoist -be HIMSELF. Let him defend HIS freedom, and protect HIS neck - then he will truely be 'right' (to say 'that is how things go', not 'that is how things ought to be')

Humans are apes, and molecules, and all that, but what of it? This does not trouble me. I am human, surely, but only as humanity is a property of mine. What I am is my will and my perspective.
Man is disturbed by what he is only when convinced of the 'badness' of such things. One who rejects such outside judgements, whether of whoring or of being an 'animal' which is alleged to be 'lower' than man, is undisturbed by such facts.
Reveal to me that I am an ape, an insect, a semite, Chinese - and I mock YOUR delusion. These are my properties, what is ME I create - I create myself out of myself.

Magic is fraud, religion is nonsense and the man who fills his head with such balderdash is a fool.
This, of course, extends to the Atheists with their religions of freedom and morality and humanity.
When anyone who holds an idea sacred makes a decision he must defend it against reason - it is agreed that clerics do this, though over time they have conceded much ground to reason - but does not the Atheist humanist or liberal do the same when he decides there is morality and sets out to prove the old religious customs by science and reason, calmly passing over if there is such a thing as 'morality'.

One 'earns' by one's power.
If you can get rich by commerce then you have it.
If you can get rich by bandetry, then you have it, and it is yours.
One can earn by work.
But one can also earn by other powers, which may be termed work, but are not services or goods.
I may work a man over with a club and take his wallet.
Or I may work a politician into my pocket and steal my 'competitors' money, for it is really MY money.
But the Objectivist cries, "Food does not appear on a table in a prepared state as a result of prayers! Men must labour to produce it!"
Indeed they must, but I get what I need by any combination of exchange or production or force or fraud or lies or seduction or any means whatsoever that appeals to me as a way of getting what I want.
And if I may gain the bread another man has made, without giving him his 'fair' due, without getting his Libertarian 'Consent' - then he ought to defend himself better.
If a man 'gives me' a paycheck, it is not that I have 'earned it' for my 'labour' but that he was too mighty to take it from and I - too mighty to enslave.
So we had to come to an understanding and work in union, as we both feared one anothers might.