What are some good anarcho-individualist books other than spooky Stirner's ego book?

What are some good anarcho-individualist books other than spooky Stirner's ego book?

Attached: download (2).png (220x148, 1.94K)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/stream/SartreJeanPaulLiteraryAndPhilosophicalEssaysCollier1962/Sartre, Jean-Paul - Literary and Philosophical Essays (Collier, 1962)#page/n3/mode/2up

what does this even mean

Maybe Jean-Paul Sartre? The existentialists had some individualistic currents.

A liberal body-without-organs.

It's really not "anarcho-individualist". It's just individualist because it holds no particular ruling system in regard.

Sartre wasn't anarchist, but I like him so dropping a link anyway. Read Materialism & Revolution, it's based.
archive.org/stream/SartreJeanPaulLiteraryAndPhilosophicalEssaysCollier1962/Sartre, Jean-Paul - Literary and Philosophical Essays (Collier, 1962)#page/n3/mode/2up

Eh. Communists are all anarchists in a sense. The only difference lies in when exactly they want anarchy.

yeah no shit. That's what anarchist means, a communist who thinks it's possible to skip the "statist" socialist stage.

Solipsist Living for Dummies

My point is that in that sense Sartre fits the criteria that OP clumsily specified.


Spinoza's ethics but you need at least 120 autism level to read it.

Atlas shrugged by Ayn Rand


Attached: 1bbfa7f1be39b9aea81f99ae648869a118bd19b9d9d74781a13096d4dd6da27d.jpg (800x500, 28.75K)

Emile Armand always seemed interesting to me. He was an egoist mutualist though, he just seemed to integrate free love / hedonism into it in a very interesting way. Guy seemed like he lived a great life.

I heard that guy was a real piece of shit.

I hate that fucker

You mean Atlas Shrugged 2.0 Electric Boogalo?

Attached: AtlasShruged2.png (790x416, 65.16K)



Philosophers usually are. What do you dislike about Sartre? I like him just for the "existence precedes essence" BTFO of idealism.

Don't forget this essay

damn, Undertale 2 really ups the social commentary

twilight of the idols theanarchistlibrary.org/library/friedrich-nietzsche-twilight-of-the-idols

God why are all egoists or likewise all literal cuckolds.

trying to wrap my brain around this retarded fucking response

I can only think of Renzo Novatore, OP. I haven't read his stuff yet, but after reading Stirner, I think he pretty much summed up all there is to it, union of egoists and all. (not to forget this Nietzsche a great addition) You can find individualistic influences in anarchists essayists like Goldman and de Cleyre.

He's probably thinking of that old threesome porn pic with the one walrus mustachioed dude that people mistake for Nietzsche.

Attached: Renzo Benzo.gif (800x566, 676.45K)


Attached: vs AynRand.jpg (1500x974 71.74 KB, 164.09K)

The real answer is Ernst Jünger, his final works were very related to Stirner.

Stirner later on in Jünger's life was like The Boss was for Naked Snake (Big Boss).

Attached: the_anarch_as_i_have_expounded_elsewhere_is_the_pendant_to_the_monarch_he_is_as_sovereign_as_the_monarch_and_also_freer_since_he_184933.png (785x1018 58.58 KB, 371.52K)

Feels Good to Know Strayans helped create the only Individualist / Egoist Collective on earth


there are way more that you don't know of. People united purely by egoistic friendship living off-grid. So no they're not "the only", the only one you know yes.

Here's an article by an American Individualist-Anarchist, a contributor to some work by Tucker (I forget the particular one). He apparently independently arrived at Egoism, like Leibniz with calculus.


Attached: 16234305643843175193.jpg (1080x1080, 163.06K)

Renzo Novatore, Bruno Filippi, Emilé Armand, Oscar Wilde

Goddamn guys, get your shit together

Wasn't Tucker some kind of "market anarchist"?

Paint me surprised.

If you haven't read Spinoza, you don't know shit about philosophy.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said, "The fact is that Spinoza is made a testing-point in modern philosophy, so that it may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."[12] His philosophical accomplishments and moral character prompted Gilles Deleuze to name him "the 'prince' of philosophers."

Give me a quick rundown on Spinoza because the moment he said "Dude God is nature and the universe." I didn't even bother reading the rest of his summary.
Yes Summary, I don't read books without knowing what I'm going into. So far Spinoza doesn't seem good unless later on he advocates for proto communism.

Do you not know the distinction between Philosophy and Social / Economic / Political Theory? You come off as uninformed. Let me guess you think you can just pick 'the best ideology' from the shelf and be set for the rest of your life? I'm picking up fallacious reasoning.

Sponozia is like the ancients, he addresses more abstract, fundamental elements of reasoning than, say, Marx, Bakunin and Bordiga did, as they put as their task to translate such foundational understandings onward towards addressing societal problems.

I literally never read a single philosophical book in my life, if Spinoza is a philosopher and not a political theorist then that must be it because I have no clue what the fuck I'm in for.

Morality is a spook, determinism is real, men almost always become slaves of external factors instead, religions are bs, everything that is is one, god is the absolute infinity, the existence itself but even more than that, like actual infinity that overflows language itself, communism is going to happen, human psychology is deterministic and fairly easy to represent, you as a person are simply your body's idea of itself, we cannot say anything about the ultimate nature of the universe…

Idk, this exercice feels futile because you want some immediate fast-food approach and get a few points quickly. Spinoza's philosophy is, in my sincere opinion, the highest form of thought possible but it is extremely rigorous and requires immense dedication and diligence. Also you'll need immense amount of knowledge about STEM fields and social science to get an intuitive grasp of how they all fit together.
As far as ethics, morals and so on go, there is no such thing as good nor evil, things are simply good for me or bad for me as to whether they decrease or increase my personal power. For politics, Spinoza argues it's not about morality or even the right reasons to rule, more about how stable society is and whether the supreme ruler would be tempted to act unjustly. Spinoza basically destroys all the illusions of the self and changes the way we think about everything. There is a reason he was heavily persecuted in the most liberal country on earth in the 17th century and there's a reason his name was taboo and anathema until atheism was finally an intellectually acceptable stance (mid 18th century in Europe).
Marx was Spinozist and so were Durkheim, Bourdieu, Hegel, and nearly anyone of half-relevance in social sciences, even contemporary. While he may look like an antiquated and almost kitsch remnant of a past, Spinoza is more actual than never before.

Attached: spinoza.png (128x128, 31.78K)

Honestly, Spinoza is really fucking hard to read, so idk. It's not written like philosophy, see pic related, it's basically a mathematical demonstration meant to objectively prove things, meaning there is no argument of authority.
Basically, I can guarantee you that even philosophers FAIL hard when trying to read this book. This is entirely normal, you have to fail quite a few times with such a monster of thought. I've been trying my way through the book for at least 3 years and the more I've come to further my understanding of Spinoza, through other philosophers commentating on his work, historical contextualisation and working on his texts, the more I feel like this is literally the most powerful philosophy there is and basically the theoretical framework for anyone who fancies themselves an intellectual or philosopher, even amateur in order to find how to organize all their knowledge.

Attached: Spinoza_Ethica_Pars1_Prop1[1].jpg (949x711, 192.17K)

Unironically this is tugging at my brain and is telling me this guy isn't even worth thinking about, like I get most leftists are deterministic but I'm not and I personally find it to be the most retarded form of thought anyone can take, at least from what I know about it from my experiences with Freud and his followers.

I'm sorry to be the one having to tell you this, but you are most likely a brainlet.

You know with how much you say the word brainlet you're probably self projecting. I'd recommend seeing a psychiatrist to help you both with your Autism Level and your self esteem.

Attached: devoid of intelligence.png (226x223, 6.95K)

I'm sorry, but I firmly stand. I had my Autism Level measured by a psychologist when I was 9, so I'm not really insecure about it, nice try though.

It certainly shows, unfortunately it seems to have gotten worse over time.

Wow, you pointing out a typo sure made you right, based histrion, what would we do without your enlightening a priori judgements? The very same thing, most likely.

And your sarcastic wit sure shot down my baseless deflection. You even proved you were an intellectual leagues above my Autism Quota by using references most people wouldn't know. Bravo, I have been utterly btfo. I guess I should have read Spinoza and maybe then I would have been smart enough not to pick a fight with you.
Okay now then
You said something as ostentatious as "Brainlet." A dead 4chan buzzword which got replaced by Grug, then the 30 yo Boomer. I had no reason what do ever to reply to you with any form of argument. If you want one give me something to argue for. What the fuck is your problem with me.

All this shit just to tell me my memes are outdated. Well guess what, I don't spend my whole life browsing vietnamese basket-weaving chatrooms in order to have the finest references to wave at people. If you want, I can withdraw the "brainlet" word if really you care that much about semantics. Replace it with "intellectually lazy" and most of the meaning would still be adequately conveyed, with even less snark which is a good thing.

No, I'm entirely willing to understand valid points. However, you join a thread about philosophy and display an utterly shallow and immature approach to the matter, especially in a field that found its historical founding in "good faith arguing" and "challenging commonly-held popular beliefs". Your attitude is unreasonable and I don't think I'll spend much more time arguing about this. Make a substantial point, nobody here is interested in your shallow opinions unless they're backed by arguments. I can't believe I have to do this.

I wasn't arguing however. I saw Spinoza brought up and decided to ask. I then voiced my opinion and said I probably won't read him as many of his point's I simply disagree with. The reason you and I are "Arguing" if you can call it that eas because you used Ad Hominem and I replied with equally shallow remarks for personal amusement.
Then don't.

Why dont you stop bitching about semantics and explain why you think determinism is false?

Read Benjamin Tucker

Because it's an absurd idea apparently if you can't comprehend it, it can't be real.

In terms of Stirnerites:
The For Ourselves collective > Benjamin "Wage Slave or Bust" Tucker

I guess it's not very well known that Victor Serge was an anarcho-individualist and best buds with the Bonnot Gang. He probably cringed at this stuff later in life but it's worth reading for the historical context:

The Right To Be Greedy was great but the guy that wrote most of it seems to have turned into some kind of conspiratard. Anyway there's other material from For Ourselves and related groups here on his deliciously web 1.0 site: lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/eLibrary/eLibrary.htm


le capitalist "stage"

Please point out where Marx advocated stages? He meant that the proles seize the state apparatus not make a new state in the classical sense. It would be unlike any previous state and the terminology is inadequate to describe how it would function. A vanguard taking control of the apparatus is not what Marx meant.

not true.

Care to share your refutation of determinism?

I'm not refuting determinism I was only stating that a lot of people on the left are not determinists as claims.