An Open Letter Concerning a Witch-Hunt

  • Posted on: 17 July 2017
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

Yesterday morning (Sunday, July 16, 2017), I received two emails from two different sources with a link to a diatribe on a web site called The Conjure House denouncing me because of the publishing house that published my translation of Stirner’s The Unique. Had I not received these emails, I would have known nothing of this, because I choose to have a minimal relationship with the internet. The internet originated in military research. Its functioning makes it an ideal tool for police work: gathering, extracting, combining, twisting and inventing “information” that may have some relations to actual existence or not, but that can cast the appearance of “guilt” on whatever target one chooses. I assume from the start that everything that goes on the internet gets into the hands of cops of one sort or another, so when I do use the internet, I do it with care. After all, I do not want to accidentally incriminate myself, nor to accidentally snitch on someone else, whether to state cops or to the wannabe cops of political correctitude in anarchist circles (both self-incrimination and accidental snitching seem to be frequent occurrences in internet interactions). That is why in this statement, which I am writing so that others who choose to can post or republish this, the only names you will see are Kevin Slaughter, Underworld Amusements, Loompanics (because they are no longer in business), Dr. Bones and my own (at the end of this statement). No other names are relevant to what I have to say and these have already been made public in this situation. I’ll start be putting forth the facts from my perspective:

I began working on my translation of Stirner’s The Unique and Its Property shortly after finishing my translations of Stirner’s Critics and The Philosophical Reactionaries. After some positive responses to these translations, I felt confident in my ability to do it. I had ideas about who I would like to publish The Unique, but made no agreement until it was pretty much finished. The person through whom I would most have liked to publish it had been having trouble getting money together to do his own projects, and there didn’t seem to be any sign of an end to this lack of funds in sight, so I assumed that was not a possibility. If I didn’t say this directly to him, my apologies to him for my lack of communication. Another anarchist publisher offered, and I considered it seriously (despite whatever differences we may have on certain things, I consider these people friends, and anyone saying otherwise is wrong and doesn’t understand how I relate to people – and besides, it’s the sort of thing NOT to say in public forums – so tales of “bad blood” are tall tales). But I had seen some of their books come out with major problems in layout and the like, and I didn’t want that for this book. Apparently they had planned to have someone else do the layout and printing for this, but I somehow missed that (or forgot it) and that is my fault, and to them I also offer apologies for my unawareness/forgetfulness. But the concern about quality was what made me look for another publisher, even if it was a mistaken concern. I wanted to find a small anarchist press (not either of the bigger anarchist publishers who, in any case, weren’t likely to be willing to print anything I was involved with) with the means to do a book of this size, but I wasn’t aware of any others who had that capacity at that time (much later, I did learn of one other). And had I not missed the fact that the publishers mentioned above had planned to have it put together by on outside printer, I most likely would have gone with them. While pondering over where to publish, a friend of mine – whom I have known since the late 1980s, who had been active in the anarchist zine culture when I met him – gave me a suggestion. He had had a couple of egoist-related books published by Underworld Amusements (UA) and had made me gifts of those books. So I knew that they were well put-together, well-edited and well-printed. At that time, I went to the UA website. What I found that UA published itself were egoist, satanist, pessimist and vintage pornographic books. Their distribution also included anarchist books and some of what I can only call “in-your-face-outsider” books. I did not see a single book in the UA distro that was fascist, white supremacist or any such thing. In fact, their distro reminded me of the theoretical part of the Loompanics distro, a bit darker and more pessimistic, but parallel in many ways. For those unfamiliar with Loompanics, it was a publishing and distribution project started by a market anarchist in 1975 that continued until around 2006. During the 1980s and well into the 1990s, Loompanics helped facilitate a lot of the lively intense debates going on in the anarchist zine scene between different anarchist ideas. The similarity I saw between these projects and the number of anarchist titles UA carried led me to assume I was dealing with someone like the founder of Loompanics, and so I was willing to turn to UA, even though it wasn’t my ideal. My friend connected me with Kevin Slaughter (hereafter, KS) through email. It is true that KS offered some monetary royalties (i.e., a percentage if books sold). Due to circumstances in my life (that are no one else’s business) I cannot get paid in any official, trackable way for anything I do. I informed KS of this. I took KS’s intention as to a desire to have the publishing relationship on a basis of mutuality, so I recommended that he give me books instead. He offered another alternative that would include some money, but this should make it obvious that money was not my motivating factor. People who know me well already know this, because they know that I have been putting out publications for decades funded out of my very low income, and that I give most of them away, operating, to the extent that it actually works out, on mutuality (this is why I never ask my friends to pay for anything: their existence in my life is already a generous gift). UA’s process of preparing the book was well on its way (layout, copy-editing, etc.) when I first heard from someone that KS might have connections with racist, right-wing, etc. movements. The way this message was worded, it seemed like a rumor. I know in the world of the internet and the tendency toward using police methods that the internet encourages, actually directly communicating with an individual about such rumors is considered old-fashioned. But that is what I did. I wrote KS a letter directly asking him about this and making it clear that I did not want to publish with a white supremacist, a white (or any other sort) of nationalist or any sort of bigot. His response was very clear and straightforward, and he said that he was not a white supremacist, a fascist or anything of that sort. Of course, I knew then and I know now that it was possible that he was lying. But someone I have known for nearly 30 years, and who has never been anything but contemptuous of bigots of all sorts, seemed to trust him. His distro, which, I would assume reflects, the sorts of ideas he considers worth sharing with others, as I said, did not seem to include any fascist or racist material (I missed it due to relative ignorance, since, unlike antifa militants< I don’t focus my life around fascism or racism or anything else that disgusts me). In fact, the only thing I had really expected to get much flack for was the vintage pornography on his site which was bound to offend some politically correct puritans. So that is my description of what went on with my decision about who to publish with. I offer my apologies to friends that I did not adequately communicate with about things relating to this, all of that is on me.

I still think that KS and UA are mainly Loompanics-like, but KS seems to have some friendliness toward certain right-wing and bigoted movements that I find contemptible, just as Dr. Bones seems to have some friendliness toward totalitarian left-wing movements (look at the scarf he wears in his website picture) that I find contemptible. So I am breaking off my long-distance interaction with KS. (I have never, to my knowledge had any contact with Dr. Bones). My anarchic and egoistic ways of encountering my worlds have always been anti-political, and I don’t want to have anything to do with the shit-heap of politics of any sort or anyone who might pull me there, whether intentionally or not. I have told KS that I do not want him to do another edition of the Stirner translation nor to do another book that he offered to do of my material. I have told him not to send me anything more (books, etc.). I have also sent my files for the book to a several friends and publishers to spread as they see fit to encourage “pirate” editions. The break with KS will most likely also make me lose my friend of nearly 30 years, but that is that’s how it goes sometimes.

However, Dr. Bones and his crypto-stalinist “communist-egoist” henchmen should not get it into their heads that they have won any victory. The Dr. has exposed himself for what he is He clearly gets pleasure witch-hunting like the totalitarians whose symbols he proudly displays. He seems to know he doesn’t have what it takes to take on the state, capitalism, cops, etc., so he decides instead to go for someone he knows makes very little use of the internet, and makes his attack through this medium. So I have to assume he’s a coward as well as a bully. His use of innuendo, distortion, blatant lies (blended with bits of truth), cheap shots (“senility”? really? perhaps the good doctor should worry that some of his politically correct friends will call him out for his agism... I just think its absurdly funny coming from a halfwit) and barely-veiled death threats all fit in with his scarcely-hidden crypto-stalinism (wearing a bandana designed like the flag of the totalitarian marxist regime of the USSR is pretty telling). As I’ve said, the internet is the perfect medium for this sort of witch-hunting campaign, a sort of campaign that also feeds very well into the interests of the authorities. Ultimately, I know this will be a tempest in a teapot. Dr. Bones may choose to call me enemy, I choose to call him nothing but a dim-witted, crypto-stalinist fool (if you want to pass yourself off as an anarchist don’t wear the symbols of a totalitarian state on your face) and be done with him.

Yesterday, in an email not intended for public viewing (though it apparently got posted on one public site), I said that I was going to drop out of public anarchist projects. I have since decided that would be the wrong way to deal with this. Dr. Bones is a pathetic bully, and I won’t back down before such crap. I have seen certain things happen at anarchist book fairs and similar gatherings that show that the upholders of politically correct moralizing can be violent toward those who don’t conform to their party line. So if I go to such gatherings, it will be with care (and with good friends who’ll have my back). I will continue my other projects, and those with whom I have done projects can decide for themselves whether they are willing to continue to have me be involved with their projects. I know they will let me know (and some already have).

To end this, a bit of a declaration:
I have nothing but contempt for all racism and all racists, no matter who they are.... I have nothing but contempt for all nationalism and all nationalists (and these days, that isn’t political correct). I have nothing but contempt for all fascism and all fascists (including the red fascists who hide behind their hammer and sickle).... and I also have nothing but contempt for ALL political systems and those who uphold them: democracy and democrats, republics and republicans, socialism and socialists, communism and communists. And I will add in here, though it is technically not a “political” system: capitalism and capitalists.

I live my life for myself, creating it as I see fit to the extent of my capabilities. In this sense, I encounter my worlds egoistically. I relate to others as individuals, not in terms of categories (except to the extent that they embrace a categorical identity, whether through proclamation or through their choice of identifying symbols), and I recognize that any freedom that is not a mere abstraction has to rest in individual autonomy. In this sense, I encounter my worlds individualistically. I refuse to be ruled to the extent that I have the strength (and so also to rule, since all rulers are ruled by the system of ruling). In this sense, I encounter my worlds anarchistically. And I have no need for a god in my worlds. So in this sense I encounter my worlds atheistically.

I don’t have time to waste any more on someone who is either a complete nitwit, utterly unaware of the significance of the symbols he displays and the methods he uses, or, as I strongly suspect, a crypto-stalinist half-wit trying to appear as an anarcho-communist-egoist. Dr. Bones is not a worthy foe, so he gets no more of my time. If I get around to it, I may also write the “declaration of independence from politics”. I promised, but I am done with dealing with an ideological idiot’s shit-slinging.

Wolfi Landstreicher



Well he answered that critic. Anyway thumbs up to independence from politics. I would take it as far as anarchists and anarchism. I agree about staying the fuck away from their pathetic milieus.

Towards the explicitly apolitical.

O but think of all the comedy

Actually Dr. Bones seems extremely happy:

He may have called Wolfi an idiot but this is the exact response he wanted.

Your account featured sensationalized claims that were highly dubious at the time and that now seem obviously false, such as "It is a tale of Wolfi Landstreicher associating an entire philosophy with the most putrid of politics for a few dollars in his bank account." and "A book seven years in the making, a new translation that could have blossomed into a renaissance for Egoism, was published through an outfit run by a racist because the motherfuckers at Little Black Cart wouldn’t pay him. Wolfi had worked on a painstaking translation and, strapped for cash, sold it to a fascist without any hesitation [...]"

You had insufficient evidence to make these claims that you phrased in very strong language. You placed them in bold and italicized font and made them the eye-grabbing introduction and climax of the piece, respectively. You now write, "I never said Wolfi was a fascist." - no, but you said he was a sellout and you misrepresented what occurred between him and the folks at LBC. These are very damaging claims. You participated in the toxic accusation tendency of the NA@ subculture in which accused people are assumed guilty until proven otherwise, in which the histrionic outrage of accusers is regularly socially rewarded, and in which the cooler heads among third parties who ask for clarification and reserve judgement are often told to do things like "drink ethylene glycol" for potentially being on the wrong side of the line in the sand. Please don't do these things that lower our level of discourse and thinking - it is seriously annoying and destructive behavior.

One might infer that you intentionally sensationalized the affair for personal gain, given that you spread your story widely online, dramatized yourself as some sort of muckraker, and included ads for your writing and Patreon. But perhaps you are just easily excited and prone to logical leaps. Either way, don't you think an at least minimal acknowledgement of these overstatements is appropriate?

Probably because he was right, even if he is a kind of a douche? The old man really comes across as having a whiny hissy fit here IMO.

WL fell in with a cryptofascist publisher, this was the bulk of the criticism. He argues convincingly that he was oblivious, rather than complicit. Fair enough! Still, this was a fairly significant mistake by his own admission!

The rest of this writing is basically a temper tantrum that somebody pointed it out.

Not-so-crypto-tankies like him,and their cheerleaders aren't any more welcomed on this site than the Keith Prestons and Kevin Slaughters. Hammer and sickle up your edgy ass, douche.

But ITS are welcome yeah?

Keith Preston has been published on this site as well.

and not someone just wearing a bandanna that he likes.

Tankies think the Hungarian revolution deserved to be crushed under the tank treads of the greatest civilization to have ever existed, that of Actually Existing Socialism, in 1956. In his recent interview, Bones didn't seem in favour of that.

Aesthetic wingnuts, whether tanky or not, just think the hammer-and-sickle looks cool as fucking hell - and obviously don't give enough of a damn about what others think to Cool It on the Distinctive Look.

By extension tankies are defenders or sympathizers of authoritarian socialist regimes. Not agreeing with a specific policy doesn't gets you off the hook if you are still "aligned" and think that on the whole they were "more good than bad" or "more right than wrong."

"Tankies" are only seemingly relevant online, where the threat they pose is wildly exaggerated by a bizarre new form of social media mccarthyism.

Some communists are Tankies, therefore all communists are Tankies, -Stirners penis

My example, re: Hungary 1956, is too narrow, admittedly. A lot has happened since then. But yours is broad enough to encompass practically every single person still balls deep or even halfshaft into a statist worldview.

If you're not an anarchist, but you're a little smart (about history, and ethics), then you're going to think socialist states of the twentieth century "got some things right", at least in comparison. Watch me do it: Cuba is broadly more right than the United States on, I guess, healthcare and landlords.

Being a tanky is obnoxious and chiefly rhetorical defense of states that are not even socialist, but simply anti-imperialist, whatever the fuck that means. We're talking defense against any charge. Like, if you say the gulag should have been mildly nicer, and maybe not every single person who went there deserved it, you are an imperialist, an orientalist, and a reactionary, lol.

Bones ain't a tanky, from what I can tell. He also doesn't appear to be nearly as statist as even many anarchists are, but instead, exactly what he says he is, an "egoist-communist", which sounds to me like an idiosyncratic name for "anarchist" by a person who is idiosyncratic in other ways. He has a hammer-and-sickle on his face. It's kinda weird, maybe, but also fine. How many people agreed with the ideas in Hunter's "Don't Worry, You Can Sleep at Night", yet are coming down hard here?

Yeah, I'd never read this but certainly been encountering the trend in thinking for years now! It's a perfect example of the nihilist sanctimony I find so cloying, the point of which is apparently to condemn any group of people who attempt to identify a common enemy and act.

But the people warning about the reactionary currents were always a few steps ahead of this critique, even as it congratulated itself for being so clever. A bunch of regular people working together to push back against toxic influences on their communities isn't the same as the geopolitical dynamics of WW2. That's fucking stupid ... Your head is rammed up your own ass if you can't see the difference.

But, like, lots of people are into it - yet aren't gonna apply the arguments it makes re: Soviet whatever. Bones ain't just a weirdo or an idiot, he's a TANKY.

He ain't.

I see you now defending your commie "comrades"... Interesting. Hammer and sickle, for starters, is the symbol of the Soviet Union, and was used by the Maoists and other authoritarian commie parties/States. So, yeah, using it makes someone a pro-Soviet.

Are you another of these "anarchist" agents of the RCP, or really just an agent of The Party... Plot keeps getting thicker.

"Ooooooh... makes me wonder" - Led Zep

the nihilist sanctimony I find so cloying, the point of which is apparently to condemn any group of people who attempt to identify a common enemy and act.

maybe you're just hanging out wth judgemental people? none of the nihilisty flks i know are judgemental about action, but they're all critical of tactics that people put a ton of faith in that haven't ever worked (or wrkd long term, at least).
but sure, any sanctimony is boring... uh, cloying. sure. cloying.

"He has a hammer-and-sickle on his face. It's kinda weird, maybe, but also fine."

No, it's not fine. It's emblematic of his self-identified worldview. It would be just as idiotic and contradictory if he wore a swastika on his face.

If someone is pretending to be an anti-authoritarian nihilist / egoist while wearing the logo of one of the most brutal authoritarian regimes in human history, (ironically, a regime that killed not only anarchists, but nihilists and egoists as well) then they should expect to be called on it.

Symbols are always going to be appropriated. He wants to be a "Right to be Greedy" communist. He wants egoism to be associated with syndicalism rather than disassociated. Wolfi has spent his life trying to press for this split because of how detrimental the old left has been to anarchists. I see a very real reason for the two to not like each other, a true dichotomy and one that egoists can finally get partisan about. Are the views of Dr. Bones those of the largest influence on American insurrectionary anarchism and anti-civ thought? I think not. Dr. Bones wants to prove his egoism is also antifa. I like my egoism to be communist personally and definitely not antifa, so I'm sympathetic to Wofli's dilemma.

His egoism is the fusion of individualism and collectivism. This is how he has written and approached things, saying that the ego and the collective can be one and the same. Dr. Bones interpretation is like a bad jpeg overused in a meme long time dead. He tries to pull his own version of egoism together with all the influences of humanism found in magic bullshit. Most magic and magical systems from the Western tradition are very humanist and I've not read any critiques of this humanism. What is also fucked up is Dr. Bones owes Aleister Crowley a nod as well. We can dismiss someone post humously but actually talk to the primary source before you write a gotcha journalism piece, just because you think you are too small to be noticed.

Sorry Dr. Bones, the anarchy sea is merely a small pond and everyone can hear each other that doesn't just write the typical activist drivel. We are still listening Dr. Bones, you self proclaimed post leftist. This "post leftism" seems like the same kind that Paul Simons, has. Why hasn't anyone questioned the credibility of Paul Simons belonging in the same trajectory as the rest of the post left anarchist thinkers? I think old people just like a hype man and he's justifying all sorts of shit positions for a "post leftist" and this Dr. Bones is hopping along with it.

Fuck, now that I think about it, so is Crimethinc. What the fuck is going on? I think someone was criticizing the "post left". I think it is time to abandon ship. It is tainted with posers.

"Right to be Greedy" is nothing else than the "radical" reformulation of what Ayn Rand's fake egoism. When applied to unions and communism, this means nothign else than Red capitalism and socialistic authoritarianism.

Please consider stopping being dupes, for grandma's sake.

"Being a tanky is obnoxious and chiefly rhetorical defense of states that are not even socialist, but simply anti-imperialist, whatever the fuck that means."

Not the other anon, I'll allow myself a tit-for-tat even if I usually don't like this form of arguing...

Soviet Russia, Vietnam, Maoist China, Yugoslavia and Cuba were by-the-book socialist. But you'd be right about North Korea, Pol Pot's Cambodia Unless you consider socialism to be an ideal of some stateless society that abolished hierarchies... but no that's anarchism, not socialist. These regimes were not democratic but rather based on proletarian "rule", no matter how that meant top-down hierarchies and quite despotic governance through unions.

They were inherently workerist regimes. You were an equal comrade (not citizen) of the Party by being a worker. The quality of the job didn't really matter in giving you a status, unless you were a manager. And everyone was made to be a worker, whether by forced labor or by making up bullshit jobs to offer to people, then politics would go through your local labor union, where delegates were picked to represent your sector/division/locality to a higher bureaucratic body.

Leaving that aside, of course these regimes had several aspects that were superior to the bullshit neoliberal capitalist regimes you're working for (emphasis on that last word). There was little if no inequality between males and females, healthcare systems were top, education was top, and proles used to know tons of skills as there was little compartmentalization of labor compared to what we have in this stupid society, where you need a fucking competence card for getting paid to spread asphalt or put on roofing tiles.

"exactly what he says he is, an "egoist-communist", which sounds to me like an idiosyncratic name for "anarchist" by a person who is idiosyncratic in other ways."

So is this recent tendency of equating roughly everything on the Left with anarchism, right.

Ego-communism can also mean a cult of personality communism... like some dickhead with communist ideals that keeps being worshipped by a circle of groupies. Like Stalin can also accurately be deemed an egoist communist. He had all the elements of an egoist who has accepted to go through State politics to push his personal agenda to gain power and rule over the place. Egoism is not anti-politics, neither against capitalism, and may very well be compliant with it.

A communist who claims being for personal power accumulation/gain is definitely NOT anarchist, but rather the contrary. Power for oneself means tyranny of the self... like on others.

[The apostrophe indicates that I am abbreviating the word "human", rendering this common term gender-neutral and totally great.]

I think we have some fundamental disagreements, not easy to address in a comment thread. Let's set aside Dr. Bones... I mostly call myself an anarchist, but I also call myself a communist, and increasingly these days, an egoist (tho I am not really committed to this last one). All these words are basically just fashion choices. They don't say much about what the person wearing wants, or does, or whatever.

I don't think "a desire for power" is bad. I want more power for me and my friends, and less power for my enemies, I guess - whoever those are. Ideally, I don't want enemies at all, but I have a social war analysis, you could say; I have enemies, of a sort, whether I want them or not.

What this has to do with egoism, I don't know. I don't really like the term very much, and I don't expect I'll ever introduce myself as one. But the notion of "confessed egoists and unconfessed egoists" was a compelling one to me, when I read it in de Acosta's "How the Stirner Eats Gods". Have you read that essay? I don't want to make this a matter of read-these-things-and-be-smart-like-me, but it seems to me a lot of misunderstandings over matters of ideology stem from a deep unfamiliarity about what others think. I take it you're a communist... Maybe you've had the pleasure of trying to talk to someone about communism whose only knowledge of Marx comes from a mainstream high scool econ class, or what their East European relatives had to say?

More like I don't think I need De Acosta to tell me about stuff that I've lived enough (like real-life communism as within open non-political relations of mutual aid) to know what they are, and how they relate to the general idea of the "Commune". Writers like Landstreicher are important to educate people around, or make us reconsider some aspects of what we've done, and hopefully if they're honest writers, to improve our approach to things.

Power accumulation for "you and your friends" likely means communalism, which is a kind of oligarchy if through a closed and private set of economical relations, and especially when not in rupture with the dominant system of, you know, Capital. Call me back in 10 years just to see if you haven't just turned into a bunch of condo yuppies, ok? If not I'll just assume the socially-predictable.


"to improve our approach to things." ...and ourselves, and others too.

Wtf did I just write "things"... ah the system's so pervasive in my broken miiiind! *sighs*

does anyone have a link to a pdf or pirated copies (paper or digital) of the new translation?

Not the anon you are responding to, but I found a mistake!

Page 19 of the PDF, 4th line from the bottom, "pauper" has an extra comma before the close quote mark.

Like, there are much worse things I can think of, but still. This isn't funny, or look-at-my-team-go, fuck-the-other-dudes hockey bullshit. It's just shitty, especially for the people involved, I am sure.

Wolfi's analysis of the internet is the most interesting part. It's solid, but I think he misses just how terrible it is to be caught up in it. De Acosta has a good idea (maybe a good critique) in an essay, called Wandering Away from Willful Disobedience, I think - which talks about how it's not as simple as Wolfi would make things out to be. You don't just choose to rebel or choose to submit, you may find yourself ALREADY REBELLING or otherwise NOT ABLE TO REBEL, which is to say, you made no choice, or making a choice to the effect is not possible. This has something to do with being caught up in internet anarchy, I think. The internet, even were it free of cops (as in certain techno-utopian dreams), it would still be a terrible hellhole in terms of the sociality it engenders. Further reading: The Circle by Dave Eggers.

I feel this is a pretty decent response, including apology (which the Wolfi Team supporters, like Ziggy above, will ignore), but I also feel bad for Bones, and I think anyone should. Bones is growing up an anarchist ON THE INTERNET. It's gotta be expected that Wolfi will be mad, but the rest of ya, have a little sympathy ya dicks.

Dude ... You JUST finished typing about how the internet is a vile sewer full of sociopaths and then you conclude by appealing to our collective sense of decency..?

You're right.

Cognitive dissonance I guess? I blame it on... the internet!

I feel a faint memory of human emotion in my little black heart when I think about how old people don't really understand the depravity, the pointless hostility... The galactic vortex of nihilist awful that the internet created.

Like there was that YouTube channel of some old guy who was learning how to play piano and his comment thread filled up with homophobic slurs and 4chan trolls telling him to kill himself and the whole thing was like watching baby sea turtles that just hatched getting picked off by birds before they make it to the water ... You know? I think it was on Tosh.0

Anyway, yeah. Feelings, glad I don't have those anymore.

Oh no! I'm having feelings about your feelings about my lack of feelings!

Calls for tolerance towards a commie who jumped the shark on the first misstep of an anarchist writer in order to destroy hia reputation? Personal communist bias perhaps?

Commies and socio-democrats have been busy slandering and attempting to control anarchists for years. RCP... Italian socialist fucks... Appelistes... Now you're still inviting us for dinner under that big tent? Hums...

Never give up!

Hey, feel free to sulk in the corner until the stars burn out! Nobody here is trying to twist your arm.

'xcept you're the one who's cornered, dupe. The walls are made by organizations and systems, that you in the end fall prey of.

Yeah, you have a ton of information to base that on. Not projecting at all!

Nice Wolfi. Nice short piece to set the record straight.

Some person trying to make an internet name out of politicized drama that blathered on about nonsense... Lamo kill yourself or live your life, leave the computer.

"Blathered on about nonsense"?

More like, old Luddite recluse gets punked by the alt-right with their standard "we're not fascists" line because he doesn't like the internet and is therefore susceptible to their rhetoric.

Gets called out by weird kid who's in to Tarot cards. Old recluse proceeds to call weird kid a lot of nasty names while grudgingly admitting that he got punked.

Once again Wolfi exposes himself as a counter-revolutionary that thinks communism is a system and that capitalism is not political. Post-left ideology would be a joke, if it wasn't so effective in perpetuating itself among young impressionable kids and posing a serious obstacle to creating a strong and effective anti-authoritarian revolutionary movement actually capable of destroying the market and the state. Time to recognize all the post-left writers are crypto-reactionaries that regularly consort with open reactionaries. Not just Wolfi but also Zerzan and black who publish with Feral House, and LBC that Publish Atassa.

It just is sorry. A few idiosyncratics like Camatte and DuPont don't change this. Most who where the Hammer and Sickle believe in a political economic system either libertarian at best and totalitarian at worst.

Bob Black, one of the founders of post leftist discourse, used to consider himself an ultra leftist and put communism in quotations to single out the good kind. He to was into communist egoism(think For Ourselves in The Bay back in the early 70s) until he wised up to what communism means for the most part.

Also where do you get the idea that Wolfi doesn't think capitalism isn't political? Have you even properly read and understood the perennial points of post left analysis as opposed to cliff note parsing?

The last time I "published with" Feral House was 1994. In 1996, Adam Parfrey broke with me, ostensibly over Jim Hogshire, but it was more out of his well-justified inferiority feelings. He claims to have violated our contract by remaindering my book "Beneath the Underground" and giving the proceeds to Hogshire. He may have lied about this, since AK Press was still selling it several years later. Heowes me some small sum in royalties. I denounce what I call Parfrey's "winky wink fascism" at every opportunity. People this ignorant of the facts should shut up.

It's true. Me and Bobby had a contest to see who had the bigger dick and I lost.

I didn't realize that Bobby is all dick!!!

Can't tell if you're a troll or not.

Wolfi could be potentially a counter-revolutionary -or deemed such by your Party- if we'd be in a revolutionary context.


Wow. Is there any post-left ideology? Is it rather a tendency than an ideology? Do you even read Mr. GENERALISING WHO? So who would you proposed us to read? Wayne Price? The Bookchinist? I've interviewed Wolfi sometimes around 2008 and I'm pretty sure that he understand what (C)ommunism and communism is. To be honest I loved Dr. Bones writings, literally...but your comments sounded that you are really retarded internet wikipedia anarchist. Read more.

Ps: I'm not bothered for that logo Dr. BONES have in his scarf though it is historically to be a symbol of massacre and imperialism in the name of communism.

There are no "counter-revolutionaries", idiot. Counter-revolutionaries are the result of a situational shift in the power dynamics (of an area, country, region, world...) whereas they are reframed as opponent or reactionary to the power shift. We are not in a revolutionary context, so stfu with your fabricated reality.

Dude maybe got a little over the top with the insults but Bones was right in the end. This statement from Wolfi (minus the embarrassing rant about the internet) is great and it's a welcome surprise to see him handle it all with grace and humility and do the right thing, especially surprising after the hysterics from everyone else about it. Calling this a "witch hunt" while admitting you fucked up and correcting your mistakes seems out of place but whatever. Kudos to Wolfi and to Bones, too, lols to the butthurt lot of you crying about guilt-by-association or whatever. Now, what's not clear is why anyone should read this bad, boring book.

It is a foundational philosophical text. Reason enough right there.

Does anyone think WL should just say "Fuck it. I have gone this far I should just stick it out with KS"?

What about yourself?

The irony is that Dr. Bones dork writes articles for websites that are ran by right-wingers lol.

Which ones?

"Tanky panky."

"Wanky Tanky"

Dora Marsden was right; anarchists with their fretting, fixed ideas and their moral embargoism, are little different essentially than Christians. You might say that Landstreicher should've given that embarrassing pipsqueak who calls himself "Bones" the middle finger and not taken a shit on Underworld Amusements and all the work Slaughter put into getting the book back into print. Slaughter has done a great amount of spade work for the history (and future) of egoism in the last two years. And so has Ardent and Aragorn et al. But who am I to tell Landsreicher/Ludd/Faun how to act? And knowing the state of discourse on the web, I wouldn't be surprised if these wimps who hide behind bandanas made threats to him unless he disavowed the UA edition. That said, it is irritating that the first decent edition of a major work in half a century has now been essentially trashed because of the pearl-clutching of a keyboard warrior who doesn't even understand Stirner (and is too young and dumb to know it) and the translator getting a fit of the vapours in response. Still, Wolfi summed up "Bones" fairly well, and gave him an opportunity for self-reflection – which will no doubt be lost on the little prick.
A bit of Irish egoist advice to those anonymice who threaten people on their blogs: One goes further with a handful of might than a bagful of shite.

Such thick sanctimony and yet I'd swear we didn't read the same things. Wolfi got punked by an alt-right publisher and admits this in his letter. As others have pointed out, it's a bit odd to say "yes, I fucked up but fuck you for noticing".

Bones was definitely melodramatic and wrong that the issue was about money but otherwise, he was correct. As an egoist, I have to say the level of reading comprehension around here is dismal ...

The point is not whether bones was right or wrong, but that how he handled the situation (aggressive accusations over the internet quickly and with loads of conjecture, without first consulting the person in question) was fucking moronic. Dr. Bones is a product of the internet in the worst way. Unfortunately, this manner of interacting is trendy these days.

That's your point, sure and I don't disagree. But is it THE point? Nope.

You all seem to think in your funny little ways that there's a point. There isn't. If any of you actually understood Stirner, Marsden or egoism fundamentally, you'd have saved yourselves a lot of time.

My understanding of egoism isn't the point either, although it's functional and I'll cheerfully acknowledge your condescending hostility too! The real point is Bones was concerned about the neo-nazi connections of the publisher and chose the tactic of a public call-out. He was correct that WL had failed to notice, he was incorrect about WLs motives and was generally melodramatic about the whole thing.

A classic case of Hanlon's razor.

She was close to being a perennially brilliant anarchic thinker. She was already one of the better feminists of the age. She developed a strong Stirnerian critique of anarchism and its modern age clericalism. If only she had not gotten her soul poisoned by Ezra Pound and gone full retard with the whole god as an egoist creation nonsense. She had the intellectual drive to really take Stirner to another level if she was ready to go there. Anarchy would have been all the better for it.

''She developed a strong Stirnerian critique of anarchism and its modern age clericalism. ''

I should perhaps say it was half decent but smudged by a wrongheaded literal conception of the ego.

Marsden indeed got quite bad, and became Ayn Rand before Ayn Rand... just in a way that was less-obvious neoliberal capitalist. Her egoism was paving way to an all-out support for fascist authoritarianism.

Still very much representative of where this trend of ego-nihilism can lead. Her rejection of anarchy was rooted in facetious arguments. Rejecting relations of authority being "moralist" or clerical? She could have made a good Anews troll I guess.

Essentially she went in the opposite direction of Stirner on the existence of the self, ego and being. Stirner simply saw these things as names and uses them as a means of marking interestation. The ego is no more real then God.

I would say that substance egoism is actually the opposite of nihilsm and Stirner's creative nothing. From that I don't think an honest Stirnerian approach really leads to these sorts of things UNLESS you have some type of literal belief or attachment to the contrived and spooky substance of being.

Can we please give up using "Tankies"? The type of Communism that originated the term is effectively dead. There's no use creating yet another spook.

I disagree that we should stop using the word because AES is, more or less, over. It still means something, even if it is currently experiencing problems of overapplication.

I take it to mean a person who defends regimes that are offensive to liberals, particular re: atrocities. It doesn't even need to be pro-Assad, actually relevant stuff, either. I saw some discussion recently of a person calling Greece an occupation of Ottoman land... Lol.

Obvs it would be a good word to take out of the vocab of certain internet commentators, but so too for the entire English language...

Use it as you will but just be aware that calling anarchists or most types of leftist in Europe may culminate with a punch in the mouth and you will be none the wiser.

Most of the political systems are (with the exception of the Bolivarians, Cuba and North Korea), but their academic-based foreign support base cultures, a.k.a. the tankies, are still alive and well. During the glory days of socialist republics you had in any region of the West a bunch of supporters of either communist regime in one university or another. Even Pol Pot's regime had their Cambodian commie student associations in France. And today there's still the Maoist some bits of ML, Trots and Stalinists, even if they are quite small and unpopular.

Wolfi, if telling the truth, I have very little problem with. Don't know about spending a second bashing the right wing egoist, in a way that sorta guilts anyone uneasy with their association and then a few pages laying into the left wing egoist, but from what I can gather of a sorta tired of people's bullshit old hand angry at getting dragged into this drama without any sorta warning, I understand, especially with how Bones went about it.
Dr. Bones, I think had a worthwhile goal (if someone whose friendly with white nationalists, likely a racist and pro-eugenics is making money off this shit and no one knows, that's worth exposing) but handled it, as many have said, like an immature social justice warrior eager to prove to the rest of the left that yes, egoists can be just as fast to drop the hammer on some perceived misstep and all that. The screen captures of quotes from Wolfi's friendlies that indicate very little, and the rush from concerning shit to speculate about to "here's proof you're a sinner, what do YOOOOOOU have to say" is kinda disgusting, though endemic to the world he seems to operate on.
Slaughter seems like a total sketchball whose keeping his real cards close to his chest. From what is online it's impossible to tell if he's a Feral House/Loompanicsesque edgelord, a right wing egoist, or a fascist entryist. How I feel depends on that a lot, and I've yet to read any statement on that, which makes me suspect the worst.
I think Dr. Bones should've aimed at Underworld instead of Wolfi. He gets enough reads that an expose of fascists infiltrating egoism woulda gotten attention and still gotten word out that this book has a questionable publisher without having to make the target someone with no interest in online leftist drama who seems to have just not known any better. Wolfi may have taken heed without the need for all this nonsense.

can you explain how egoism would be right or left wing? such a person would not be an egoist. 'i don't and do believe in mental constructs at the same time.' jesus is trump's paranoid schizophrenia rubbing off on everyone. everyone. boring as fuck.

it's a nondual orientation toward now.

Different poster, I'll throw in a nickel. For many of us, egoism is mostly a tool for critique, not an identity. When you negate/deconstruct different moral/ethical frameworks, it's not about dismissing the entire realm of ethics so much as consciously building one of your own.

In my case, some of my ethics are then perceived as "left" by people, depending on the context but the important thing is that they're actually my own ethics, not something that was spoon-fed to me. Whether or not they're "left" is often in the eye of the beholder.

For instance, I hate capitalism and the rich because I've been broke and/or homeless and/or working class most of my life. Reading a bit of Marx just helped me conceptualize why I was filled with rage.

Here is an example of one of the downsides of working with a non anarchist publisher:

"Quickly sold out within 24 hours, this limited hardback edition was one of three copies set aside to make sure if there was damage or loss during shipping, we would be able to replace the limited edition instead of being forced to offer a refund.
Enough time has passed that we are selling one of these copies, and may be offering the other soon. This is a brand-new, unsold book direct from the publisher."

I spoke to Dr Bones recently and I said "who gives a fuck if some shitty publisher made a few bucks, burn the place down or stfu, and if a moralistic internet stage player is the way to go, add a little detournement for fucks sake. He had a sickle look on his face.

I also talked to Wolfi. Headline: better to be pissed off than pissed on, so why not both?!

The double standard is enormous. They dismiss with the greatest ease any connection to communism of the totalitarian communist regime that served as an example for fascism, the symbols of which they have adopted as symbols of communism, but they jump at the publisher of a translation to say that it proves non-left anarchism (not aligned to the big leftist tent) to be a type of fascism. They were waiting for an opportunity, and they see what they want to see.

The plot goes deeper

An apt and useful term. Leads me to wonder why there is a conflict between complimentary groups such as antifa & modern fringe fascists—two distinct forms of fascism. Their unity would offer better attempts to totalize & dominate—their urge. Trite trophies won from banal competition appeals to them, though.

They are, however, already unifiied, in ignorance. Beneficiaries of the civilization war, brothers-in-arms, dressed in their pretentious uniforms. Dumb subjects of the modern persistent megaculture in which alle is rendered cosplay.

Alright trollface , clearly you've been getting some miles out of this bullshit but this time, fuck right off, K?

they are compared to one another, their similarities noted. Undermines their rank-filling quota dreams. Shepherds in competition with other shepherds, wanting bigger flocks. Covet not thy neighbor's flock. Dream to become something other than a pastoralist.

Oh whatever. You don't actually give a fuck about anything except feeling like you're the cleverest duck ;)

It's time to drop the "antifa are the real fascists" line . . . antifa are commies, and the majority of hideous excesses and murder that plagued the 20th century was a result of communist and socialist regimes. The issue is the state and totalitarianism, and fascism played very little part. Its own 'excesses" were engulfed by the crimes of communism. To use "fascist" as a byword for terror and evil is just to be seduced by the "Hollywood Nazi" version of history, which is to say a fake, revisionist, history. Fascism, and Hitler's National Socialism were comparatively noble, when compared with the genocidal evil of communism and Bolshevism.

You do realize you can condemn communist totalitarianism without being an apologist for fascism ... It's not as if you have to pick one of the piles of shit to jump in.

associate themselves with the hammer and sickle cells.

Tankies, MLs, Maoists and other misguided left affiliates identify with antifascism and so do lots of other people. You just scan a picture of a crowd and get triggered by the Red Army wannabes. Says more about you and your own "spooks" than anything else.

not a spook. If there is a tendency that has a structural ideational relationship with ideas that are red and repugnant then I take notice. I reject anti-zionism for a similar reason(structural anti-semitic inflow.)

Right ... So when other people making prejudiced, irrational assumptions, it's a spook. When you do it, it's something else. Can't say I'm surprised!

It's brainwashed Neonazi Propagandist/Sheep #63790 lurking on anarchist/communist/socialist/Left sites to shock-and-awe us.

I really hope they pay you well so you get better drugs than crack as mental compensation for how they fucked you up, son!

Was referring to 19:29 not his SE little butt-fuck buddy with softy pants.

Okay, so the publisher is a white nationalist and Wolfi should have never associated with to begin with, but the translation itself is still correct, right? A lot of people seem to be using the connection with white nationalism to discredit the content of the book itself, and that's just ignorant. Or is there something I'm not getting here? Did the publisher edit the translation to suit his own white nationalist agenda?

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.