#egoist anarchism
Text
THE EXPROPRIATION
“From the earliest times there were men — comparable to today’s sharks — who, using brutal force and cunning, appropriated the common patrimony.
If they had limited themselves to this, it would have been little bad, since the damaged ones, adopting the systems of their marauders, could perhaps have regained the lost goods, perhaps reviving others.
The real evil arose instead when said marauders, to consolidate and increase the products of theft, constituted the authority and pretended to dictate laws to the world and precisely to those who had been usurped by them.
Thus there were tyrants on one side and slaves on the other.
The first solemnly proclaimed: “Property is the fruit of labor and savings and is sacred and inviolable.” And the defense of the hypocritical principle of sacred and inviolable property was entrusted to three shady figures who still reign: the gendarme — synonymous with brutality and ferocity -, the priest and the moralist, who personify the lie.
Against this principle philosophers rose up, who ruled: “Property is theft”; they were joined by thousands and thousands of slaves hoping for freedom and equality, and who divided themselves into schools and parties headed by shepherds, who are repeating — to the point of putting the public to sleep for the boredom they cause — their speeches about rights and duties of workers, on humanitarianism, altruism, justice, solidarity, brotherhood, equality, freedom, etc., etc., and, as if they were to build a building, trace the design of society future, between the dazed looks of the poor and the ironic smile of the rich.
These sentimental speeches are jeremiads, which seem to want to convince the owners to give up their possessions for the benefit of derelict humanity. But the rich are deaf, they are not moved and, above all, they are strong, because they have gendarmes, priests, moralists and social reformists more or less varnished with revolutionism; on the contrary, the rich, seeing that the people are content with whining and that they allow themselves to be duped by bad shepherds, become more and more bold and aggressive, and, as if the violence of the royal or republican authorities were not enough, they hire armed gangs to the defense of their capital.
I like speeches very little, much less sentimental and rhetorical ones; it doesn’t matter to me whether property is the product of labor or theft; I do not make considerations on law and justice, nor do I care to arouse feelings of humanity. I know that I must live my life as comfortably and as freely as I can, and I try to find the means necessary for this purpose.
“The right to life is not begged, but is taken”, so I say to my comrades: we live as anarchically as we can, without waiting for the laggard of the future, which for us anarchists will always have unhealthy rays.
Society rightly considers us enemies, therefore we do not seek any way of reconciliation, we reject the means of struggle that it offers us — means for political and trade union struggles — and we choose our means ourselves, and whether these are adequate for the difficult task that we face. we propose, superior to those adopted by our enemy. We accept the challenge and fight without respite or quarter, to achieve victory immediately and not in the year two thousand.
Force comes down with force, violence with violence, property with expropriation.
I attach the greatest revolutionary importance, the highest subversive significance to individual expropriation. It means: practical and effective rebellion against the system of exploitation perpetrated by the idle and the pleasure-seekers to the detriment of the workers; conquest of the right to life, joy and freedom, since society only tramples on the poor; revenge against property owners and social institutions. On the contrary, the multiplication of individual expropriations constitutes a true and profound social disintegration; and revolutionism and anarchism — today more than ever, in the face of the arrogance of the socialist party which claims to impose its dictatorship — have no reason to exist and to manifest themselves except as essentially anti-social tendencies.
The revolution, to demolish the present and future organisms of oppression and exploitation, does not take place on fixed dates on the barricades, but takes place every hour, every moment in the multiple assaults against society, by the unscrupulous and rebellious individuals.
It is necessary to overthrow and destroy all the principles that support the so-called civil society; and the expropriation of individuals, while on the one hand it poisons the existence of the rich, who feel they are suffocating under the weight of wealth in danger, on the other it undermines the social and moral edifice from its very foundations.
The systematic individual expropriation of the rebels and the strong, the irreverent violation of the dominant principles — religious, authoritarian and moral -, the iconoclastic profanation of all that is considered sacred and inviolable, constitute the foundation of revolutionary and anarchist criticism, the reason for being anti-socialist anarchism.
So we, being anarchists, rise up against the crusade of cheap humanitarians, of altruistic shopkeepers, who with plasters claim to heal social rot.
Those who approve of revolution and collective expropriation — beyond to come — and repudiate individual expropriation, are sacristans of the monarchy rather than revolutionaries. Let them speak of reformism — perhaps anti-parliamentary — but not of revolution and much less of anarchism.
Giulio [Jules] Bonnot’s example of action — to quote just one name — is worth much more to me than all the revolutionary preaching of the socialist anarchists.
Convinced of this, I address myself, not to the flock that does not want to understand me, but to men endowed with a strong will, and I tell them: awaiting the Apocalypse , let us carry out our expropriating revolution, to achieve our well-being and our freedom.“
— Erinne Vivani
#anarchism#anti capitalism#anarchist#anarchy#1312#egoism#insurrection#insurrectionary anarchism#egoist#egoist communism#egoist anarchism#anticapitalist#antiwork#freedom#acab#anarcho nihilism#anarchocommunism#erinne vivani#illegalism#illegalist#expropriation#individualist#individualist anarchism#anarcho-communism#anti work
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
i made an egoist discord server if yall gigachad egoists wanna join it
we do egoist art stuffs and shit but also like we do regular egoist community shits too so we arent just art lmao, its fun tho u should join if u like community servers
#egoism#egoist#egoist anarchism#anarchy#anarchism#anarchist#anti capitalism#max stirner#egocom#egoist communism#egoist communist#anti capitalist#egoist anarchist
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Bang Bang Bonnot Gang
#anarchism#insurrectionary anarchism#max stirner#1312#egoism#post left#nihilism#chaos#anti capitalism#egoist anarchism#individualist anarchism#bank robbery#jules bonnot#bonnot gang#grand theft auto#gta
0 notes
Text
Solar energy requires the erection of massive solar industry complexes, which lay bare the land by clearing out human populations and the migration routes of animals and people for
giant solar fields, substations, and access ways. All of these require unusually high-carbon concrete. Wind and solar energy as well as the production of bio-fuels all require 100-1000
times the land area as the production of fossil fuels.
Fuck the Chinese subsistence farmers who have carcinogenic industrial waste dumped on their lands everyday from those solar panel factories. They’re just not thinking ecologically enough. And forget the Ghanaians who complain when worn-out solar panels are piled into mountains in their backyards with the rest of the West’s obsolete tech. They are just impeding ecological progress. Whether oil wells, coal power plants, or megalithic “green” projects – all are rooted in an unprecedented destruction of habitats for human and other beings. Therefore it cannot be the goal to replace one destructive technology with another. The goal should be a massive and radical reduction in energy consumption.
Anarchists who only struggle to free industry from capitalism must finally face the brutal reality. Down with industry, down with work.
To use the words of the Indigenous Anarchist ziq: Seize the Means of Destruction! And fucking burn it to the ground…
What comes next depends on what we do. The necessity of getting active has never been so great as today
60 notes
·
View notes
Text
I also hate the whole anti-individualist attitude on this site. I am my own woman. I may have things in common with you, but I am myself. I own myself. If I have an identity, I do not belong to that community, I merely am in that community. For I belong to no one and nothing but myself. I may allow myself to work with others, but it's my decision, for I gain from it. I may allow myself in situations where I am less powerful, but that's because I enjoy it.
Fuck you. I am me.
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Self as a Whole: The Ego and its Rights
( Previous | Next )
Back again with another piece of this series. Hopefully it's more structured than the last, but it was still written over a number of days, especially while I was tired in bed. Just like last time, no one's forcing you to read, but I would like to thank anyone who takes the time to.
The title of this series of writings being a nod to egoism is no coincidence. Egoism is a philosophy of the self. It has taken many roles throughout history from the epistomelogical to the political. A name you may recognize in relation to egoism is likely Max Stirner, of whom I have great respect for as a philosopher. I'm not an egoist myself, but there are a number of things that I agree with egoists on, one in particular being of import to this series.
Before discussing thia agreement, I first think it necessary to define the ego. The ego is the whole of oneself, what makes a man who he is. It's the collective knowledge he has acquired, his behaviors, his beliefs, his motivations. It's interchangeable with "the self". The exactness of the nature of the ego is up to debate, egoism taking its own position on that, but this is what the ego is. One's ego is inalienable, it is theirs alone and ends where they do. With that out of the way, let's discuss that which I do agree with egoists on.
Man is selfish - inherently so. Everything a man does is motivated by his own selfishness, to serve his own ego. This is a philosophical position known as psychological egoism. It posits that every human action is taken due to a perception of gain, whether consciously or unconsciously. This gain can come in many forms. The most obvious form is the material - this is where most people I speak to on the subject stop when they hear me speak of gain. But gain need not be material and indeed may even be sacrificial of the material. Spiritual, intellectual, moral, social, and emotional gain are also determinants of one's actions.
In whole, what this means is that altruism itself is a result of selfishness. There is no true altruism. All perceived altruism is really selfishness. Giving food to the needy is altruistic - one is sacrificing time, energy, and resources to do so. This isn't done with nothing being gained in return, however. The reason for the giving tells us what we need to know. "It's the right thing to do" tells us there is moral value and thus is serving the ego's sense of morality. "God tells us we should" tells us there is spiritual value and thus is serving the ego's sense of piety. "It makes me feel warm inside" tells us there is emotional value and thus is serving the ego's feelings. There is also the motivation that it will look good to do it (a motivation few would admit to publicly) and thus there is a social gain, the promise of raising one's social status within a group.
One might look at this and ask, "But what if someone doesn't see any gain? What if they get nothing in return? Would that not prove egoism wrong?" To that I would sigh and say to read again. A perception of gain need not be a conscious effort, nor does it need to see the gain as a guarantee. It's simply the possibility of gain that one's ego may see, a possibility great enough to act in the hopes of attaining that gain. If in the end they gain nothing, then that is not evidence of the lack of selfishness but rather evidence of a bad judgement call. The ego is still being served, even when not served effectively.
As a result of the ego and its judgements, we can gain an understanding of value. Value is simply the worth of an item as viewed by an individual within an exchange. One's value judgement of a product is subject to their personal wants, needs, and ability. When an exchange is made, it's because there is a gain viewed in making such a transaction. The labor theory of value posits that labor is the deciding factor of value, but I do not wholly agree with this. What I do agree with is that labor is taken into consideration, but for labor to be the deciding factor of value, labor itself must have intrinsic and calculable value. Short of having to log one's hours of labor with witnesses to confirm and then subtracting the hours of labor used to create a product, I do not see how this can be done.
An alternative to the labor theory of value is the subjective theory of value. The theory states that value is determined by the individuals involved at the moment of exchange. Both the buyer and the seller have different exchange values. The buyer has a cap on how much they are willing to give up in exchange, the seller has a minimum requirement they are willing to accept before giving up their product. When their exchange values align, there is a sale. Market value is determined by the general exchange tendencies in the market.
These values can be expressed as a number of stones traded for a cart. We'll start with exchange value. The buyer is willing to spend no more than 10 stones on the cart, the seller is unwilling to give up the cart for anything less than 8 stones. The buyer and seller could each offer a price anywhere between 8 and 10 stones to purchase the cart. If the buyer offers 7 stones, there's no deal, the seller will not part. If the seller asks for 11 stones, there's no deal, the buyer will not pay. The exchange value is thus between 8 and 10 stones. Market value simply takes the average exchange value and there you go.
Through statist intervention in the market, these values can be and have been manipulated through artificial means. For example, in the US, non-competes more often than not prevent the lowering of exchange values thus keeping market value higher than it otherwise would have been. Subsidies lower the market value of a particular product, but they also cause other products to increase in price due to pushing for overproduction of one product at the expense of producing another product. Bailouts and other State assistance for companies give less incentive to lower prices and protects them from the consequences of not serving their customers. But this all too is driven by man serving his ego - the power being readily available is tempting, even when that power is at the expense of others.
The greatest example of the subjectivity of value is through the so-called diamond-water "paradox" - aka the "paradox" of value. I scoff at the idea of this being a paradox, since a paradox is logically self-contradictory and thus cannot be given a definite answer. The "paradox" is as follows - although water holds more utility, diamonds have greater market value. This "paradox" appears as early as Plato and yet, knowing all we do, it's still considered a paradox. But I am here to say - it is not. There are no contradictions in the problem presented. Water may be more useful, but it's also more abundant. While the price of diamonds has been artificially raised through social engineering, it is still less abundant than water. Between the two, diamonds are simply sought after more than water.
But this is not always the case - the problem focuses solely on the market value, when on the individual level the needs and wants of the individual affects the momentary exchange value. Take two men for example. Man A is at the foot of a mountain with abundant glacial runoff all year round. Man B is lost in the Sahara desert, facing dessication as his canteen had run out the day before. The Merchant offers A one cup of water in exchange for a diamond. A can simply go to the runoff to get a cup of water without needing to give up his diamond. A laughs off the merchant, "You're a fool coming to a wellspring of water offering a tiny portion in exchange for what's more rarely seen." So the Merchant leaves A and in a flash appears before B with the same offer. B has no guarantee he will find water anytime soon, he risks death by dessication if he does not get any water. B agrees to the trade, "This diamond means less than my life, it's no good to me if I'm dead, while this cup of water can sustain my body longer that I may be able to procure more diamonds in the future."
Between A and B, their situations are entirely different. A has water in abundance, B has a dirth of water around him. A can afford to keep the diamond without risk to himself, B cannot afford to lose out on an opportunity for water. A does not value water more than his diamond, B does not value his diamond more than water. Subjective value is the answer to the supposed "paradox". There is no one universal market, there are just many markets divisible down to the smallest market - that being the exchange between two individuals. One's need is as important to determining value as any other aspect of value.
By now I've hopefully made my point on value and explained well enough where it comes from and what it means. But there is one other thing I wish to talk about, something I've seen egoists call a "spook" and yet ultimately agree with: rights. There have been many debates on the subject - people saying they don't exist, people saying they are derived from some social contract, people saying they are derived from some deity, and people saying they are inherent. I am of the last camp, although there are many other camps. Ayn Rand had come to the same conclusions as me through logic, but her and her Randians refused to call them rights. Egoists come to the same conclusions as me through philosophical consistency, though they as well refuse to call them rights. But I find the term - defined as a power one is entitled to - to be apt.
Rights can be understood and concluded through a logical process of questions and answers. Would you be okay with someone killing you without your consent? Would you be okay with someone having sex with you without your consent? Would you be okay with someone kicking you out of your home without your consent? You can continue this line of questioning and you'll find the limits of your rights - and those limits are defined by consent. The egoist says your ego ends where another begins, that you are to leave alone the ego of another. The same is with rights. Rights are inalienable from the self, so where you go so do your rights and thus your rights end where another person begins.
From this standard of consent I've come to understand rights. I have a right to speak freely, I don't have a right to steal the product of another man's labor. I have a right to bear arms, I don't have a right to murder another person. My rights are my own, they are inherent and inalienable to myself. The same is with yours. I serve my ego and leave you to serve yours. My entire politic is derived from the standards of consent, that my ego and yours are to respect the rights of each other. If one would wish to change my politic, they would have to convince me that it's fine to violate another's consent - an uphill battle, to be sure.
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
wages and salaries are bribing
#you can’t argue me on this because i’m right#anti capitalism#individualist anarchism#anarchy#post left#anti civ#egoism#anarcho nihilism#anarcho nihilist#egoist
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime."
Max Stirner
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Greece: First issue of the anarcho-nihilist newspaper “Blessed Is The Flame”
In the following link we provide the digital version of the first issue of the newspaper of our project “Blessed Is The Flame“, a project for the diffusion of the theory and praxis of black-flag anarchy* While the newspaper is in Greek, we would like to see it translated in other languages too and be disseminated internationally. If any comrades are interested in this undertaking, contact us at blessedistheflame (at) riseup (dot) net, and we can provide you with an editable .odt version of the file.
PDF: Ευλογημένη Η Φλόγα Τεύχος
In this newspaper we will cover topics like international and local anti-info of the two most recent months, discussions, claims of responsibility, ideas and tips about direct action and anti-surveillance.
Editorial: “The present newspaper is the printed form of the project Blessed Is The Flame, which will be irregularly issued. The purpose of this project is not only to disseminate black-flag anarchy, but more generally to disseminate the radical thoery, praxis and criticism that stems from the act of insurrectionarry armed desire, recognising that the social situation we are in, and which we did not choose, leads our lives to bankruptcy, to the alienation of our Egos.
We do not attempt to persuade anyone, we do not wish to bet on the mass mobilisation of a robotised society. What we are trying to do is contribute in building a communication bridge between those who have chosen to revolt here and now and those who want to revolt. We are what we are because we got courage and inspiration from the rebels who show us what is possible. We do not postpone the insurrectionary and revolutionary action for an indeterminate future because we are liberated from the bonds of hope. We are not nihilists because we are simply pessimists. No, we are nihilists because the situations around us do not allow us to think of future utopias, because we do not wait for freedom to come, but we bring freedom each time we act with defiance and without compromise against society, state, capital, and any other aspect of civilisation. This is the most immediate realisation of anarchy.
Long live direct, anarchist and guerrila action
No resignation, no truce, no peace
For anarchy and nihilism”
*In the terminology used within the Greek radical circles, black anarchy (μαύρη αναρχία) refers collectively to the nihilist, individualist, insurrectionary, anti-social and egoist currents of anarchism.
Posted in LibraryTagged Anarchist Newspaper, Anarcho-Nihilist, Anti-Social, Black Anarchy, Blessed Is The Flame, Egoist, Greece, Individualist Anarchist, Insurrection, PDF, Publication, Revolution
#anarcho nihilism#anti-social#black anarchy#blessed in the flame#egoism#greece#individualist anarchism#revolución#insurrection#revolution
43 notes
·
View notes
Text
The religion discourse in anarchism never changes, and you know what: it's getting old. There's so many anarchists who are so committed to that old slogan that was appropriated from a Blanquist of all people that they're absolutely confident that when anarchy is established they're gonna get rid of every form of religion there is, and these same types of anarchist always operate by the same Christian/Christian-ish or 19th century understanding of religion, which completely fails to deal with religions that aren't based on the idea that your continued existence after death depends on you following the correct religio-philosophical doctrine to the letter and worshipping one correct god. This problem especially applies when dealing with things like paganism, indigenous religions, and occult movements (and, by extension, any understanding of Satanism that does not conform to The Satanic Temple's neo-romanticist new atheism). Some anti-theists openly say that their answer to the general phenomenon of religion is to coercively proselytise against people who have any given religion: to harass, stigmatize, and even violently attack people in the hopes of getting them to leave their religions behind. They justify such behaviour on the grounds that "religion" is comparable to racism as a "false belief" and therefore inherently oppressive. Lo and behold, Soviet anti-religious campaigns are to be waged by anti-Soviets! Is there not a sweeter irony?
But the fact is, I am tired of the whole discourse on the internet, though I may keep making a lot of the same points I do, because damn it I am justified in doing so. Regardless, I say, let's just dispense with it all in favour one simple thing: I will not conform to your vision of reality by any means, and as far as anarchy is concerned, you can either respect that or I will fight you. We either understand each other on the subject, or we can't be "comrades". We're either on the same page, or we're probably going to be enemies. And if you have any illusions of us putting up wth any fantasies of violent proselytism towards us, you should reconsider them. And I very much mean to be an egoist/individualist about this. I find that's not particularly difficult through Stirner's philosophy. There will not be any complications in play, and the anti-theist who doesn't like this can simply get fucked. I am not interested in compromise here, and I am not interested in discourse with them.
19 notes
·
View notes
Text
I. As I write these lines, election season is in full swing. The walls are plastered with posters of every color where people claim to be of every flag, every “color” of opinion. Who doesn’t have his party, his program, his profession of faith? Who is not either a socialist, a radical, a progressive, a liberal, or a “proportionalist” — the newest fad? This abnegation of the self is the great malady of the century. One belongs to an association, a union, a party; one shares the opinions, the convictions, the rule of conduct of another. One is led, a follower, a disciple, a slave, never oneself.
It’s true that this is less taxing. To belong to a party, adopting someone else’s program, adjusting to a collective line of conduct, is to avoid thinking, reflecting, creating one’s own ideas. It is to dispense with acting by oneself. It is the triumph of the famous theory of the “least effort,” for the love of which so many stupid things have been said and done.
Some call this living. It’s true: the mollusk lives, the invertebrate lives; the plagiarist, the copycat, the babbler all live; the lemming, the traitor, the slanderer and the gossip all live. Let us leave them and dream not only of living, but something more: “to feel alive.”
II. To feel alive is not only to be aware that we are regularly performing the functions that maintain the individual (and, if you like, the species). Nor is feeling alive to perform the acts of one’s life within a narrow design, in line with some wise book written by some author who knows nothing of life but its hallucinations, crucibles, and equations. To feel alive is certainly not to keep to neatly graveled paths in a public garden when the capricious trails of wild undergrowth are calling out to you. To feel alive is to vibrate, thrill, shudder with the perfume of flowers, the songs of birds, the crashing of the waves, the howling of the wind, the silence of solitude, the feverish voice of crowds. To feel alive is to be as sensible to the plaintive chant of the shepherd as to the harmonies of great operas, to the radiant influence of a poem as to the pleasures of love.
To feel alive is to render exciting those details of one’s life that are worth the trouble: to make of the latter a fleeting experiment, and of the first an experiment that succeeds. All of this with no constraints, with no program imposed in advance; according to one’s temperament, then, to one’s state of being in the moment, one’s conception of life.
III. One can think oneself an anarchist and vegetate. One can mirror the anarchism of one’s newspaper, one’s favorite writer, one’s group. One can call oneself original and deep down be nothing more than a second- or third-degree add-on or outsider.
Being bound by the yoke of a so-called “anarchist” morality is to be always tied down. All a priori moralities are the same: theocratic, bourgeois, collectivist or anarchist. Doubled over under a rule of conduct contrary to your judgment, reason, and experience, to what you feel and desire, on the pretext that it is the rule chosen by all the members of your group, is the act of a monk, not of an anarchist. It is not the act of a negator of authority to fear a loss of esteem or incurring the disapproval of your circle. All that your comrade can ask of you is not to encroach on the practice of his life; he cannot go farther.
IV. An essential condition for “feeling alive” is to know how to appreciate one’s life. Morals, sensations, rules of behavior, emotions, knowledges, faculties, opinions, passions, meaning, the brain, etc. — so many means that can allow us to approach our life. So many servants at the command of the “self” for it to develop and expand. Mastering them all, the conscious “negator of authority” does not allow himself to be mastered by any of them. When he succumbs, it is from lack of education of the will. This is not irreparable. The studied “one-beyond-domination” is not fearful; he enjoys everything, bites into everything, within the limits of individual appreciation. He tastes everything and nothing is repugnant to him, so long as he maintains his moral equilibrium.
Only the anarchist can feel himself living, for he is the unique one among men, the only one whose appreciation of life has its source in himself, without the impure intermixing of an authority imposed from without.
— Émile Armand, To Feel Alive
#anarchism#anti capitalism#anarchist#anarchy#1312#egoism#insurrection#insurrectionary anarchism#émile armand#egoist#egoist anarchism#acab#revolution
3 notes
·
View notes
Note
Individualist anarchism
(Any interpretation)
It's based imo. A lot of anarchists I learned from originally in anarchist spaces were cluster B / antisocial egoists and I watched a lot of collectivist anarchists use ableist ideas and terminology surrounding sociopathy and mentally ill ppl who might not fit their idea of social norms which pushed me more into individualism.
My interpretation was simply it's a branch of anarchism that addresses individual over "the community", or another wording, The IndividualTM over social norms, tradition, ideological systems etc. Takes inspiration from Max Stirner, the leading figure in Individualist Anarchism, and his philosophy and ideas around egoism, usually ties into Anarcho-Nihilism as Stirner inspired nihilistic philosophy and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
(I apologize I didn't know if your ask was asking for my opinion or an explanation!)
10 notes
·
View notes
Text
10.25 Happy bday to the GOAT iconoclast Max Stirner aka Johann Kaspar Schmidt
#anarchism#insurrectionary anarchism#egoism#max stirner#post left#saint max#the unique and its property#der einzige#taoism#creative nothing#union of egoists#corporeal freedom#the unique
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
1. Is fire bolt politicalized, in that case where does fulgur stand. We need more money hungry genderqueers /j
2. Moriti transition timeline?
3. I know this isn't a 2014 ask a character blog but hi hg ily
Only when it's funny. In that case, Fulgur would be a egoist (excerpt from the Wikipedia "[Egoism] advocates personal liberation and rejects subordination, emphasizing the absolute priority of self-interest.") Essentially anarchism with a focus on one's individual gain aka honk is a selfish bastard =).
2. b. 17 July 1994 as Morris Bordales, in 2009 at age 15 traumatized by explosives that went off at an antique store they were in which, a few weeks later, triggered their transformation. Moved to Cairn the same year, was given new identification (new name Moriti Hadrianus) and had their old identity pronounced dead a few years later. At around 3-4 years Post-T Mors was completely transformed into how we know them now. They are currently 14 years Post-T
3. He says hello and to report your higher-ups for violations every chance you can get Σ8:}
#lore#firebolt#admin misc#q&a#questions and answers#asks#asked and answered#Moriti is also unlabeled and technically trans but he didn't really come out or transition per se#you might call the triggering gender affirming but hey you didn't hear that from me...#oc: fulgur#oc: moriti hadrainus#oc: hg
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
'Causes' are the diversion of the feeble – of those who have lost the power of acting strongly from their own nature. They are for the titillation of the senses of the herd, and a person who can act strongly should shun all Cause-ites and their works. Strong natures [...] act out their beliefs in their own person, not realizing that such grounds for actions as Causes proffer are in place only among those who, having lost the instinct for action, amuse themselves by words, occasionally are fascinated by the jargon, with consequences disastrous in the highest degree to themselves.
- Dora Marsden, The Freewoman Volume 1 Issue 1, 1913
Dora Marsden is pictured above being arrested in 1909, after an action in conjunction with several other suffragettes which involved her dressing in her full academic regalia as an alma-mater of Owens College in Manchester, UK, to interrupt a speech by the Chancellor of that college and demand that he speak out against the force feeding of imprisoned suffragettes who were on hunger strike.
Marsden, in the following years, would go on to start three literary and philosophical journals which published many important works including some by authors like T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, and James Joyce.
Following her disaffection with the Suffragette movement, she identified as an egoist and an individualist anarchist, and was one of the most prominent voices who brought Max Stirner's scathing critique of society forward into the twentieth century, building upon him to create her own unique philosophy at the intersection of egoist anarchism and feminism. She advocated for free love and individualism and attacked various cultural monoliths she saw as limiting the freedom of people and especially women, arguing that the institution of marriage reduced women to objects whose only purpose was reproduction.
Later in her life, she published works on the philosophy of language and time, the latter from within a mental hospital where she spent the last twenty five years of her life, the hospital having classified her as severely depressed. She left behind a rich legacy and a large impact on the ideological development of many milieus, and has gained an increased amount of attention in the last few years, with a comprehensive biography of her life being published in 2019.
#anarchism#anarchists#feminists#suffragette#individualist anarchism#egoism#anarcha-feminism#she should be better known#feminist firebrand#individualism#libertarian socialism#history
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
"free country" is an oxymoron <3
5 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
infinitypizzaa
Untitled
imaishn
résumé.
excelwithsmart
SMART TRAINING RESOURCES INDIA LTD.
mr-john-sex
Mr John
infinity-dreams27
Ariana Palacios