Next: Further Essays on Egoist-Communism

A Critical Re-Evaluation of Egoist-Communism

Shedding The Legacy of Dr. Bones

Introduction

I intend this particular strain of Egoist-Communism to be mostly Egoist with an added materialist dialectic (terming it like this to avoid Orthodox Marxism) inspired by intersectional & materialist feminism, and to pick up where another strain—Vikky Storm's Egoist-Communism left off which has been a big inspiration for me. In the flag, there are 8 arrows projecting outwards from a common origin against a black background, bisecting the red gear of dialectic materialism is the rejection & active transgression against phantasms — especially phantasms that divide the Unique, based on forced divisions of labor & the legitimization of monopolies on violence—such as gender, any notion of 'being charitable' in owning of productive property and the Puritan work ethic. I've intentionally avoided the usual motif of bisecting a color with black, as the goal of anarchism is the abolition of all hierarchies—the emphasis on the black background represents the abolition of dominion as a constant process, not anarchy as utopian destination.

I apply materialist analysis to power & active opposition to essentialism to see the hierarchies around me & recognize even the hierarchical dynamics social capital tends to have—especially when it's quantified in centralized social media owned by corporations. It is obvious, then—that this Egoist-Communism is influenced by materialist and intersectional feminism—albeit distantly, as I've read many intriguing anarcha-feminist texts—particularly those calling out masculinist anarchists (manarchists) and liberal abolitionists—further stressing the need to reclaim this very potent idea—Egoist-Communism from its last exponent, the much-beloathed manarchist and rapist Dr. Bones & redefine it as to empower Max Stirner's just-as-potent philosophy of Egoism with the potent tool of material dialectic (the core tent of this particular Egoist-Communism) for Uniques to own their abolition of all hierarchies—without any sacralized cause, ideal or utopia & phantasms forced upon us by states and capitalists.

It is neither purely insurrectionary nor revolutionary—it is rather emancipatory; imploring emancipation from the state and capitalism at the first opportunity, and considering the instrumentality — but not the sacralization of solidarity with the targets of majorities, governments and ruling economic classes.

Ego-Communism as both Dialectic Egoism and Dialectic Materialism

I tend to combine Stirner's Egoism with a dialectic materialism—which is egoist-communism, as the logical conclusion to the application of Egoism and dialectic materialism in politics is a communist society. It still is "post-left", while considering that material and economic relations between individuals constitute power & rejects 'revolution' as neither fixed nor destination. Ego-Communism for the most part, is still based on anarchist principles and Max Stirner's philosophy of egoism, it considers dialectic materialism as instrumental—preferably the intersectional feminist interpretation of it.

I simply see dynamics that behave like productive property (like online platforms) and see the hierarchical precedent in it based on materialism, especially when followers and engagement can be seen as 'profit'—essentially, glorified social capital. I build the new society I want from the shell of the old, without any abstract above me. I do it simply because it pleases me and so will please others like me. I do not force this upon others as I see sacred 'helpfulness' as a big factor in systemic saneism as humans are not monoliths; to place abstracts above oneself will eventually lead to coerciveness.

I do not wish to selfishly own my productive property or my online platform, I try to share and encourage my friends to negotiate its usage of it, as I take pleasure in sharing with others. So, I cannot reasonably call this 'my' private property if I allow others to own it, because I should consider material relations between individuals. Capitalism has indeed, projected itself onto social media & how it is structured—it is no coincidence that social media platforms behave like private property. There is also the motive for profit in a capitalist system, which mutualism removes while retaining private property based on occupancy and I synthesize with mutualist tactics in achieving equality of opportunity & outcome without a holy 'revolution'. The goal, after all—is our immediate emancipation from all hierarchies; without idly waiting for a revolution or a massive strike.

While I see it as a virtue myself—virtue is subjective and I own my virtue, so I must consider material relations in other cases as well because if other people like me who own productive property act in their rational self-interest, motivated especially by profit—it will result in the accumulation of power which will result in hierarchical structures. What takes the liberty of others will eventually come to take away mine as humans are neither monolithically greedy or helpful, that's sanctifying competition and mutual aid—the latter of which I hate about Kropotkin but I don't necessarily expect this from those adhering to his anarcho-communism.

A New Dawn for Ego-Communism

Perhaps, it is time for a new dawn for egoist communism before the manarchists start scavenging it for their own reactionary purposes & bastardize it again: dialectic materialism as a powerful tool for the Unique, in questioning power and abolishing hierarchy. An egoist who's read Marx & understands intersectionality, daring to reclaim the concept of egoist-communism to spite Dr. Bones.

It's my attempt to reclaim and re-evaluate egoist-communism with influences from feminist and queer theory (a la Vikky Storm), against its previous iteration by the not-so-egoist-communist author Dr. Bones, who is a rapist. In addition to Dr. Bones' actions, Narcissus was right to realize the anarchist community has a rape apologia problem in their writings on Andrew Lloyd. I am not, in any way—qualified to write on the ordeal beyond mentioning Narcissus' warnings, and I would highly suggest reading their essay.

We must fix that—perhaps starting with the application of materialist philosophy that has been important as a tool in feminist and queer theory. We reject gender, it is the forced division of reproductive labor in the lens of Marxian base and superstructure & materialist feminism. This is axiomatic, In our struggle against gender, we have to center the experiences of transgenders and cis women when we talk about feminism in all its varieties, such as transfeminism and Marxist feminism which blessed us with intersectionality.

We center the unprivileged & exploited class, not the privileged & exploiter class in any movement that's supposed to center around liberation. If we center men in the feminist movement, it becomes a paternalistic patriarchy. Not with defending the sexual availability of minors to adults as an adult under the pretense of youth liberation—neither Bob Black's rancid 'Feminism as Fascism' essay.

Max Stirner and Empathy

The correlation among egoists between their philosophy and empathy has a lot do with Stirner being a young Hegelian and doing a lot of dialectic, trying to "out-dialectic Hegel's dialectic", so to speak. Engaging in dialectic with another person needs requires you to understand yourself; your limits, your situation and your values (self-mastery) aside from the sacred ideas and constructs you may have or still have put above yourself—in turn, that can lead you to understand the other person; their situation, their limits and their values; even recognize the differences in how both of you define words, especially dreary, nebulous ones like 'politics', 'democracy' and 'republic'.

Abstracts & sacred causes, such as masculinity & moralism can be oppressive on you through violence & conformism, and make you oppressive through their ownership over you—Stirner's egoism gives you the chance to be transgressive and own the meaning of abstracts forced on you—especially those through the division of labor, such as gender with reproductive labor—through transgression (genderpunk) and rejecting your assigned gender (transgender). Instead of defering to the law, any institution or 'higher authority' to seek absolute morality, you negotiate with your friends and community on what is actually right and wrong to do and act decisively based on such rejection of absolutism

I don't like debates, zero sum, winner-vs-loser "discussions" that painstakingly loop around sanctimonious 'facts' and 'logic'—I prefer discourse that is centered around the unity between values and personal practices, which leans to constructivism and materialism. It certainly is dialectic, and it is conveniently not authoritarian—it is parallel to the anarchist principle of the unity between means and ends. This points to some critiques of leftism, in that leftists are 'owned' by their cause of defeating the right to the point of forcing itself on the lumpenproletariat, forgetting their opposition to hierarchies in doing so.

To realize and live this (plain egoist anarchism), and consider dialectic materialism (ego-communism); where you consider that unequal material conditions between individuals may take away your range of choices as well; all with the anarchist principle of opposing all hierarchies in mind—whether it be organizing, assembling or doing a bit of relationship anarchy; may be the full realization of egoist anarchism. You may either make your own anarchic oasis within this statist, capitalist and cis-heteropatriarchical world; or take direct action against those big three hierarchies with your friends. Who am I to judge you for either?

To quote Max Stirner's 'The Philosophical Reactionaries': "Do you philosophers actually have an inkling that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Nothing but an inkling. What retort can you hearty fellows make against it, when I again dialectically demolish what you have just dialectically put up? You have shown me with what “eloquence” one can make all into nothing and nothing into all, black into white and white into black. What do you have against it, when I turn your neat trick back on you? But with the dialectical trick of a philosophy of nature, neither you nor I will cancel the great facts of modern natural research, no more than Schelling and Hegel did."

No More Waiting

I would argue the vanguardist wolf wearing the "pastel and twee" sheep's clothing are to blame for a lot of the failures of leftism. Some vanguardists even redefine imperialism as to justify non-NATO interstate violence, as if it's any better. I may add that there is too much organizationalism even among libertarian socialist tendencies. Your organization becomes unmeritable the moment you trade its principles for state support. It doesn't matter if you align yourself with the Atlantic or Eurasian blocs of geopolitics—or any state in that matter. You want the state to 'wither away'? Then do it—force the damned state to wither away yourself and force it to resolve its own contradictions with bloody dialectic, instead of placing some jack-ass politburo above you that's merely reached the dictatorship of the "proletariat" (more like dictatorship of the politburo—what of the lumpenproletariat then? do you forcibly "educate" them on your interpretation of class consciousness? sounds like a shittier dystopia)

Aside from shitting on his own magnum opus, dialectic naturalism and then deciding to myopically & astonishingly defend Israel—What did Bookchin do to live his values, to earn the merit of riffing on his strawman for contemporary anarchists—the "lifestyle anarchist"? I reject this term entirely, and will understand if anyone rejects what I'll posit. What of "lifestyle leftism", then—where you pretend to be for social justice and against hierarchies & fail to live up to it in your practices? It barely is a lifestyle, as much as it is following the herd after hearing your friends quip about how politicians suck — the better term for this then, is aesthetic leftism — where you fatalistically offload all ownership of your values to "morality", the "revolution", the "party", the "specific anarchist organization" for the sake of habitually joining circlejerks — supporting any geopolitical camp over another; a state or any organization seeking to establish a monopoly on violence.

Among us, is a dissonance of internecine geopolitical discourse (read: sympathy of interstate violence in "pastel and twee" aesthetic) that we should reject in favor of non-statist, popular struggle & resistance to their co-optation by actors seeking to establish new states — while not deaf to states responsible for disproportionate interstate violence in their regions (i.e. Israel in the Middle East). All sympathizers for the opposition of geopolitics (CSTO and co.) are Eurasianists — likewise, all sympathizers for the dominant side of geopolitics (NATO and co.) are Atlanticists. I don't see why any of them are any less worthy of scorn. The actual dynamics on the ground are far more complex of course, so it is best to keep these terms as heuristics — lest we return to the reification of leftism and rightism, which will forcing the lumpenproletriat to futilely stay in the 'center', remaining ignorant to the fact that politics, as the legitimization of the forced removal of agency of one individual/group by another — is everywhere.

In essence, aesthetic leftism is the appropriation of progressive aesthetics for the sake of farming social capital & achieve reactionary, authoritarian aims. Such "aesthetic leftism" is most apparent not just in geopolitics but also in queer assimilationism — where we are questioning even kink's role at Pride, and essentialize kink into harmful paraphilias—to the point of implicitly (and explicitly) blaming porn for our setbacks in civil rights, and that we must look respectable to the majority to progress. This Kafkaesque discourse of nebulous, idealistic "pragmatism", and Atlanticist-versus-Eurasianist campist geopolitics is doomed to failure & fails to see how states legitimize the monopoly on violence through ideas and utopias. By picking a side, you are legitimizing a state — your liberties and the liberties of others are not billiard balls to be struck by the cue stick of realpolitik.

I've even heard anarcho-syndicalists say that we need to ally with state actors, otherwise people will starve — and that I can't "join the enemy" in their objective view, proceeding to submit to what is in essence, lesser evilism in the form of being supplied arms by state actors. It is entirely said without ever having actually clarified their merit in living the experience of organizing — because I am promoting emancipation from the state and capitalism. Some may call this an ad-hominem, but that's merely an opening for one that is indeed worth pointing out. It is provident then to ask for the individual's experience in that regard — if none, the dialectic & material forces around it as a counter to such deterministic logic — lest we forget the dreadful existence of a cartoonishly evil geopolitics called "realpolitik".

To the prior argument I say, sure—our 'anarchist organization' could accept state actors as arms suppliers, and try to somehow balance this out by not showing sympathy to state actors. But, that is solipsistic—are we the only anarchist organization on Earth? Other anarchist organizations of such kind, with similar goals may turn sympathetic to states. Does that mean we must forcibly dissolve other anarchist organizations in a sectarian crusade to quench our thirst for a world anarchist revolution? I intend 'emancipation' to be a broad term that includes creating conditions of independence and abolishing all individual servitude and domination—it doesn't preclude neither justice, community-building or insurrection. Practicing and receiving mutual aid may be instrumental in emancipation.

I say, we treat all states to be equally worthy of contempt, for all are built on slavery and rape. Curb your sacralized pragmatism—the means of immediate emancipation entirely justify the ends. We are not waiting for your revolutionary determinism, as anarchy is not a utopian destination like what communism is to orthodox Marxist dialectic—it is rather the constant abolition of authority, and you merely substituted "communism" for "anarchism". I don't condone organized anarchism—in fact, I will reject it for the most part. I just don't like what I see in it, material contradictions and determinism—the material conditions make organized anarchism unfeasible at meeting the principle of uniting means and ends—especially when applied to you, I and we—transformed into the unity between my individual values and my practices—to question power and make a stand against authority at the first opportunity.

As anarchists, we shouldn't be ruled by ideologies and ideals—first and foremost. Ideas should serve you and I, not the other way around—I take pleasure in abolishing hierarchies and using a materialist dialectic (preferably of the feminist kind, not the deterministic Marxist kind) to see them—egoism and communism. I'd argue then—that what should take precedence in praxis is the constant, critical analysis of how social capital tends to be hierarchical—such as, how anarcha-feminists were betrayed by "accountability processes" and have come to righteously despise them, for they only shielded rapists as they had disproportionate social capital. They go in detail about how social capital can be oppressive, I previously thought I was alone in this regard. That's what makes them not only resistant to procedural fetishism, but also materialist and intersectional—whence its rightful, honorable mention in here.

Anarchy Is Justice

Liberal abolitionism, as this moralism & idealism around 'restorative' and 'transformative' justice is disparagingly called; must be dealt with through the disambiguation of the principles in which anarchist justice can be sustained — otherwise, we will be stuck all day listening to mewling, moralizing complaints about how "KYLR is bad and violent" instead of seeing through the material power dynamics, that you can point at and go "Yeah, that's domination."—without being haunted by any idealism or moralism of the sorts. Any stateless justice should revolve around correcting the social, material & structural domination within the community, as anarchism is the constant abolition of dominion—is it not? Otherwise, It stops being anarchy when it remains a utopian destination until "the revolution", and becomes an ideal akin to Marxian communism.

Anarchy is justice. I see this justice, per this definition as the material, dialectic force that maintains maybe even anarchist society that we can put to use right now, but obviously shouldn't preclude justice undertaken by individuals undergoing direct abuse—especially under this new framing. It isn't a rigmarole everyone must do through a monolithic 'due process' — ideas, discourse, structures, language, science and art constitute power in and of themselves. Justice, as the correction of social, material & structural domination; is based on our material relations and justifies our ends.

Proceduralism is a pernicious barrier that makes sure individuals suffer just a bit more quietly. Most especially, the neurodivergent folk suffering from abuse and constant violations of our agency by a prescribed 'best', as they gaslight our identity away through authorities and the phantasms legitimizing them—making us all the drearier and overwhelmed by the prospect of going through court. Once you've gone through the exasperating bunk of bureaucracy and lawyers, you will be met by jury staring at you coldly—as the adversarial court bickers endlessly and meticulously around you, just so they can judge you in a binary of innocent and guilty—all in legalese. This is the procedure the State applies onto every unique individual to legitimize themselves as saviors—this is torment I won't wish on even my own worst enemy! To quote Max Stirner:

“I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them.”

No one should sympathize with those who torment & dominate—nor should we be consumed by the ideal of changing the worst offenders, especially when they blatantly act on seeking power to exercise it viscerally & ideologically—especially when acts such as rape could be—or surely be the ideological precedent in which state societies are built upon. The tormented can revolt against their tormentor, and can surely object to the essentialization & moralized warping of their self-liberation into the torment of their tormentor by moral absolutists. So, it is intuitive to first prioritize the perspectives of the alleged victims and present survivors of violence. What makes them any less worthy of solidarity and sympathy than popular revolutions and insurrections against our common tormentors: the bureaucratic states and their ruling classes?

As for precedents of state society, cartels provide a decent insight if you view them as such—rape, organized hierarchies vying for succession, drugs & poppies as currency and commodity; all incentives among the hierarchs to exploit the campesino—almost as if, the modern states were dealing with mirrors of themselves without the Enlightenment principles legitimizing their existence through phantasms such as virtue, merit & morality justifying the monopoly on violence of the liberal, bourgeois ruling class that seek to mystify their violence.

Individuals like you and I, (for the most part) have their own unique values and ideals—constantly grappling with the material conditions of reality to maintain and achieve said values and ideals respectively. It is then, only technically possible to change the worst offender—would you burden yourself with a lifetime of trying to convince Hitler into becoming an anarchist? At this point, it is a matter of teleology, and material constraints and unconstrained teleology don't get along well, lest it mutates into hopeless false balance—even a method that seeks to 'restore' even the worst offenders must first still consider the needs of alleged victims & consider that perhaps, the offender must cease to be the burden of a collective and respect the decisions of other collectives who aware of—and ostracizing him, as to not make him become their burden as well. We already have similar, arguably prefigurative systems right now—at this very moment, in the form of whisper networks among feminists and 'bad date lists' among sex workers.

I would recommend reading this wonderful essay on a similar matter by William Gillis, check it out!

Emancipation as the Dialectic of Revolt

"Hierarchy is the rule of thoughts, the rule of the spirit! We are hierarchical to the present day, put down by those who are backed up by thoughts. Thoughts are the sacred."

All this implies an "acceleration through emancipation", a forced resolution of dialectic which may be the way we may make all states "wither away"—force the resolution of the social and material contradictions between us and the ruling classes through emancipation, leading into anarchy. Though, states can self-repair, can surveil, different personalities rule & legislate, external actors intervene, meaning that outcomes aren’t deterministic—they depend on action based on the immediate, contingent conditions of oppression to achieve the resolution, whence the primacy of the individual in their struggle against not just State and Capital—but in their immediate, personal politics as well. The enforced apoliticism around us idealistically, and implicitly denies action against the legitimization of the forced removal of choice on groups and individuals by authorities with a disproportionate range of choice; even at the miniature scale of personal politics.

Politics is the legitimization of the forced removal of choice by an authority. You forcefully take away someone's iPad merely because it's 'not good for their health'? That is politics. I do it, you do it and no one should have a monopoly on it & we shouldn't have our direct action be constipated by news stories and organizations who think they have our best interest & justify it through totalizing abstractions, procedures and structures. No structure is "natural", there is no essence in anything that makes them fixed and unchanging—otherwise it becomes a phantasm. So, it is completely up to me and you; the Unique on how you oppose politics. After all, we are anarchists out of our egoism—right? We do not give a damn about how many times you plaster "No Politics" in your spaces, in a futile bet to avoid the nebulous, demonized ideal you've made out of "politics".

We learned that anarchy is justice, and justice sustains anarchy. So then, our anarchism should yield the most material effect for the liberties of the targets of ruling classes, as violent resolutions progresses liberty in state society. It can range from many things, as arming black people to scare off the Klansmen played a great role in how POC in the United States got civil rights & gave them immediate protection when the State inevitably failed them—like a quasi-utilitarian anarchism—insurrections that force the state to compromise & give the most liberties to its targets, through this bloody resolution of dialectic—Insurrection isn't the only way forward, though—we have to be mindful that the state, to maintain the dominion of its ruling class; will resort to ugly measures to maintain its rule by any means necessary. What is certain is that it's vacuous and historically uninformed to wholly rely on playing by the state's normative procedures alone—no matter how "democratic" it may be.

Anarchy, like languages—must embrace that our own sacred structures aren't fixed; they evolve and know no essence, like the field of linguistics today where the influence of post-structuralism is deep. Max Stirner himself doesn't provide an ontology, whence the Anarchist FAQ refering to him a "Rorschach test" (G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?) as he can be read in many different ways to the point that we have created a constructed, idealized "Max Stirner" among us Egoists—a 'spook' out of him. In a way, Egoist-Communism implements a more materialist reading of Stirner and his dialectical egoism—turning into a more militant version of queer theory, which synthesizes critical theory (Neo-Marxist theory, which is materialist at it's core) tempering the perceived idealist elements of post-structuralism. An anarchist reading of Stirner will result in post-structuralism—structures and constructs inherently constitute power and don't have a fixed meaning independent of phantasms (the author's intent may very well be a phantasm); they change and are contingent on present (material, in this case) conditions & and can produce material outcomes. That is my key gripe with more revolutionary forms of anarchism, in that it sees anarchy as a destination and not a constant; as power is everywhere.

I consider the creation of intentional communities (not just in real life—but in whichever medium where people interact with each other) and small little acts of justice to be neither lesser or higher than insurrection—one may build the resolution and ad-hoc participation in the counter-economy on these principles, the other may force the resolution in bloody dialectic—whence the broadness of the individual's emancipation, which should never preclude either wildcat social insertion, community-building, solidarity, justice nor insurrection. To use the logic of the Enlightenment against it, the logical conclusion of the "social contract" is the full realization of the ability of individuals to be able to revoke it without economic & ideological coercion.

Beyond 'Essence' And 'Structure'

Must we give up and 'transcend the binary of state versus anarchy' by rejecting ontology and escaping reality? Not exactly, anarchy is the constant abolition of dominion and no longer should we think of it as a utopian destination—so, justice (as defined in "Anarchy Is Justice") may the way anarchy is sustained in anarchist society that we can very well do right now, that may give every community and movement an anarchic character without the authority and prestige of the "specific anarchist organization" through the constant correction of social, structural and material domination & stratification within them; a kind of wildcat social insertion without trying to thread the needle between the social insertion of especifistas and the political entryism of others. To act on this, especially the dialectic behind it; disregarding artificial and material obstacles put up by authorities and the state, constitutes emancipation.

Whence anarchist ethics, as used and termed by anarcha-feminists; has been instrumental to inspiring the very idea of anarchy as constant abolition of authority—as such, this should be the basis of anarchist justice as the antithesis of liberal abolitionism. This leads to the subject of subjectivity—the subjectivity of results among collectives grasping at resolution within the limits of their material conditions. It is generally not in my best interest to prescribe results and processes that are going to be contingent on the other's own material restraints which may not be in their interest to share with me, but I will describe the actual dynamics and the structures & ideas behind dominion in their community—telling them to do a course of action I have determined without interrogating structures, after all; would be authoritative & presumptuous and may be what constitutes a political motive. It is thus preferable to allow any association to be their own judge, based on my analysis of their structure and conditions—this is wildcat social insertion.

The influence of post-structuralism tends to show up in my tendency to have a multi-ontological approach to 'dialectical materialism', insofar it deals with precedents of material domination by one authority over individuals through the unilateral restriction of their range of choices. I reject essentializing binaries and teleology—even when determined by Marxian 'dialectical material forces' while knowing that history is moved by class struggle (and the struggles between hierarchs and their procedures, rituals and phantasms). Generally, what happens between 2 adults (which behaves akin to unions of egoists) is not such precedent & the policing of queerness today is very much rooted in superficial, one-size-fits-all moralism. I.e. you may harrass someone online, and this will produce material domination on the individual by restricting their range of choices—making it violence. I tend to reject proceduralism in favor of active, constant dialectical forces & a constant antithesis to established hierarchical structures which was effective in my critiques against idealistic & liberal abolitionism of prisons—providing a dialectical alternative that can be put into practice (the correction of domination & such)

Fascist propaganda, while just "text" & devoid of potential of violence in complete isolation is a reasonable precedent for harm, insofar it finds adherents willing to dominate "other" groups & restrict the liberties of other people—the interpretation of the author does not matter, in stark contrast to the audience independently interpreting the text & potentially acting on the interpretation. The best example of such application is all fiction; you can judge it and interpret it independently of the author, without essentializing the object of concern into a phantasmed binary of "good or evil"—or pathologized (essentialism dressed up in idealistically authoritarian "science" that totalizingly reduces people to a set of organs and nebulous psychology—implicitly denying, and the existence of their egoism; their personality), which I see as dangerously myopic—all while recognizing that others do; based on their cultural, economic and political position in the world, especially the very latter that makes the myopia in binary thinking dangerous. We can only imagine the communist society as a society where we can point at the propaganda of the past—and laugh at it, knowing that it is incapable of causing any more violence—just as we today, spit at the face of gender as we own it not out of obligation by the cisheteropatriarchy; but, out of our egoism alone.

The Left is not yet lost (or already is lost, as much as the Right)—We must rediscover our teeth through a forced resolution of this dialectic, and with something new that has immediacy as an antithesis to fascism's promises of cathartic, idealized retribution—a special place in their promised "new order" to the fatalistic & inert "normie".

Of course, while we are at it, we will take pleasure in rebellion; the subversion and transgression against all hierarchies—we are anarcho-communists not out of any obligation to any constructed phantasm, but out of our own egoism alone, and that is our greatest strength. We invite you with open arms to our joyous communization!