Dionysian Anarchism

„Verhasst ist mir das Folgen und das Führen. Gehorchen? Nein! Und aber nein – Regieren!“ “Despicable to me are following and leading. Commanding? Even worse to me than heeding!” — Friedrich Nietzsche, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (The Gay Science; Prelude. 33) (Regieren = to govern, to rule; Gehorchen = to obey)

Scientists then vs now (on philosophy)

“The state practices ‘violence’, the individual must not do so. The state's behaviour is violence, and it calls its violence ‘law’; that of the individ­ual, 'crime’.” — Max Stirner

A friendly suggestion to post-structutalists and post-modernists: Go read some actual anarchist literature instead of forming your opinion about so-called "classical anarchism" based on the writings of a few "post-anarchist" writers who, it seems, have to distort and misrepresent anarchism in order to sell "post"-anarchism — depicting a vast, highly diverse philosophy and movement as some simplistic monolith... (I'm not criticizing post-structutalist/post-modernist philosophy here... this is not about that philosophy itself. But only about what I perceived to be a rather common tendency among "post-anarchists") https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jesse-cohn-and-shawn-wilbur-what-s-wrong-with-postanarchism

Whether philosophy comforts

“Even a quick assesment shows that it is not only obvious that German culture is declining but that there is sufficient reason for that. In the end, no one can spend more than they have: that is true of an individual, it is true of a people. If one spends oneself for power, for power politics, for economics, world trade, parliamentarianism, and military interests – if one spends in this direction the quantum of understanding, seriousness, will, and self-overcoming which one represents, then it will be lacking for the other direction. Culture and the state – one should not deceive oneself about this – are antagonists: ‘Culture-State’ [‚Kultur-Staat‘] is merely a modern idea. One lives off the other, one thrives at the expense of the other. All great ages of culture are ages of political decline: what is great culturally has always been unpolitical, even anti-political.” — Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols (§8. 4)

Two classic introductions to anarchism Anarchy by Errico Malatesta: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/Emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays

Stirner on money and work

Ontology vs teleology of freedom

“I secure my freedom with regard to the world in the degree that I make the world my own, ‘gain it and take possession of it’ for myself, by whatever might, by that of persuasion, of petition, of categorical demand, yes, even by hypocrisy, cheating, etc.; for the means that I use for it are determined by what I am. If I am weak, I have only weak means, like the aforesaid, which yet are good enough for a considerable part of the world. Besides, cheating, hypocrisy, lying, look worse than they are. Who has not cheated the police, the law? Who has not quickly taken on an air of honourable loyalty before the sheriff's officer who meets him, in order to conceal an illegality that may have been committed? He who has not done it has simply let violence be done to him; he was a weakling from – conscience. I know that my freedom is diminished even by not being able to carry out my will on another object, be this other something without will, like a rock, or something with will, like a government, an individual; I deny my ownness when – in presence of another – I give myself up, give way, desist, submit; therefore by loyalty, submission. For it is one thing when I give up my previous course because it does not lead to the goal, and therefore turn out of a wrong road; it is another when I yield myself a prisoner. I get around a rock that stands in my way, until I have powder enough to blast it; I get around the laws of a people, until I have gathered strength to overthrow them. Because I cannot grasp the moon, is it therefore to be ‘sacred’ to me, an Astarte? If I only could grasp you, I surely would, and, if I only find a means to get up to you, you shall not frighten me! You inapprehensible one, you shall remain inapprehensible to me only until I have acquired the might for apprehension and call you my own; I do not give myself up before you, but only bide my time. Even if for the present I put up with my inability to touch you, I yet remember it against you. Vigorous men have always done so. When the ‘loyal’ had exalted an unsubdued power to be their master and had adored it, when they had demanded adoration from all, then there came some such son of nature who would not loyally submit, and drove the adored power from its inaccessible Olympus. He cried his ‘stand still’ to the rolling sun, and made the earth go round; the loyal had to make the best of it; he laid his axe to the sacred oaks, and the ‘loyal’ were astonished that no heavenly fire consumed him; he threw the Pope off Peter's chair, and the ‘loyal’ had no way to hinder it; he is tearing down the divine-right business, and the ‘loyal’ croak in vain, and at last are silent.” — Max Stirner

“Thousands of years of civilization have obscured to you what you are, have made you believe you are not egoists but are called to be idealists (‘good men’). Shake that off! Do not seek for freedom, which does precisely deprive you of yourselves, in ‘self-denial’; but seek for yourselves, become egoists, become each of you an almighty ego. Or, more clearly: Just recognize yourselves again, just recognize what you really are, and let go your hypocritical endeavours, your foolish mania to be something else than you are. Hypocritical I call them because you have yet remained egoists all these thousands of years, but sleeping, self-deceiving, crazy egoists, you heautontimorumenoses, you self­-tormentors. Never yet has a religion been able to dispense with ‘promises’, whether they referred us to the other world or to this (‘long life’, etc.); for man is mercenary and does nothing ‘gratis’. But how about that ‘doing the good for the good's sake’ without prospect of reward? As if here too the pay was not contained in the satisfaction that it is to afford. Even religion, therefore, is founded on our egoism and – exploits it; calculated for our desires, it stifles many others for the sake of one. This then gives the phenomenon of cheated egoism, where I satisfy, not myself, but one of my desires, such as the impulse toward blessedness. Religion promises me the – ‘supreme good’; to gain this I no longer regard any other of my desires, and do not slake them. – All your doings are unconfessed, secret, covert, and concealed egoism. But because they are egoism that you are unwilling to confess to yourselves, that you keep secret from yourselves, hence not mani­fest and public egoism, consequently unconscious egoism, therefore they are not egoism, but thraldom, service, self-renunciation; you are egoists, and you are not, since you renounce egoism. Where you seem most to be such, you have drawn upon the word ‘egoist’ – loathing and contempt.” — Max Stirner

“Ownness created a new freedom; for ownness is the creator of everything, as genius (a definite ownness), which is always originality, has for a long time already been looked upon as the creator of new productions that have a place in the history of the world. If your efforts are ever to make ‘freedom’ the issue, then exhaust freedom's demands. Who is it that is to become free? You, I, we. Free from what? From everything that is not you, not I, not we. I, therefore, am the kernel that is to be delivered from all wrappings and – freed from all cramping shells. What is left when I have been freed from everything that is not I? Only I, and nothing but I. But freedom has nothing to offer to this I himself. As to what is now to happen further after I have become free, freedom is silent – as our governments, when the prisoner's time is up, merely let him go, thrusting him out into abandonment. Now why, if freedom is striven after for love of the I after all, why not choose the I himself as beginning, middle, and end? Am I not worth more than freedom? Is it not I that make myself free, am not I the first? Even unfree, even laid in a thousand fetters, I yet am; and I am not, like freedom, extant only in the future and in hopes, but even as the most abject of slaves I am – present. Think that over well, and decide whether you will place on your banner the dream of ‘freedom’ or the resolution of ‘egoism’, of ‘own­ness’. ‘Freedom’ awakens your rage against everything that is not you; ‘egoism’ calls you to joy over yourselves, to self-enjoyment; ‘freedom’ is and remains a longing, a romantic plaint, a Christian hope for unearthliness and futurity; ‘ownness’ is a reality, which of itself removes just so much unfreedom as by barring your own way hinders you. What does not disturb you, you will not want to renounce; and, if it begins to disturb you, why, you know that ‘you must obey your­selves rather than men’! Freedom teaches only: Get yourselves rid, relieve yourselves of everything burdensome; it does not teach you who you yourselves are. Rid, rid! That is its battlecry, get rid even of yourselves, ‘deny yourselves’. But ownness calls you back to yourselves, it says ‘come to yourself!’ Under the aegis of freedom you get rid of many kinds of things, but something new pinches you again: ‘you are rid of the Evil One; evil is left’. As own you are really rid of everything, and what clings to you you have accepted; it is your choice and your pleasure. The own man is the free-born, the man free to begin with; the free man, on the contrary, is only the eleutheromaniac, the dreamer and enthusiast. The former is originally free, because he recognizes nothing but himself; he does not need to free himself first, because at the start he rejects everything outside himself, because he prizes nothing more than himself, rates nothing higher, because, in short, he starts from himself and ‘comes to himself’. Constrained by childish respect, he is nevertheless already working at ‘freeing’ himself from this constraint. Ownness works in the little egoist, and procures him the desired – freedom.” — Max Stirner

The totalitarianism of capital

Liberal feminism is often not even a complete inversion of patriarchal values, it indeed directly inherits patriarchal values, for capitalism is patriarchal... (and of course, inversion of patriarchy is also, by its nature, patriarchal)

“The polemic against privilege forms a characteristic feature of liberalism, which fumes against ‘privilege’ because it itself appeals to ‘right’. Further than to fuming it cannot carry this; for privileges do not fall before right falls, as they are only forms of right. But right falls apart into its nothingness when it is swallowed up by might, when one understands what is meant by ‘might goes before right’. All right explains itself then as privilege, and privilege itself as power, as – superior power. […] Right – is a wheel in the head, put there by a spook; power – that am I myself, I am the powerful one and owner of power. Right is above me, is absolute, and exists in one higher, as whose grace it flows to me: right is a gift of grace from the judge; power and might exist only in me the powerful and mighty.” — Max Stirner

Feminism would be a form of slave morality insofar as it is a mere inversion of values of patriarchy. Indeed liberal feminism has generally been nothing but this. What often passes as "radical" feminism, which however is nothing but a form of radical liberalism, — all the more is that so with it. True radical feminism rejects 'patriarchy' altogether and is creative — it's not a mere 'inversion' of patriarchal values. Anarchism, or anarchist feminism, represents this.

Stirner on rights

Liberals and the papa State

TERFiarchy 🤝🏻 Patriarchy