Rev Left Radio - Egoist-Communism: Insurrectionism, Illegalism, And The Union Of Egoists W/ Dr. Bones

Episode Date: July 10, 2017

Dr. Bones is an Egoist, Communist, Insurrectionary Anarchist, Conjurer, and Gonzo Journalist. He joins Brett on the podcast to discuss his philosophy of Egoist-Communism inspired by the works of Max Stirner.  Topics Include: Egoism, The Union of Egoists, Insurrectionary Anarchism, The G20 riots in Hamburg, critiques of Marxism and Anarcho-Communism, an open invitation for Brett to come to Florida to eat Alligator and drink copious amounts of alcohol in a graveyard, and MUCH much more.  Here are some links to Dr. Bone's work: www.theconjurehouse.com www.godsandradicals.org Follow Dr. Bones on Twitter: @Ole_Bonsey Please donate to our Patreon: www.patreon.com/RevLeftRadio Follow us on Twitter: @RevLeftRadio Follow us on FB: www.facebook.com/revleftradio This Podcast is Officially Affiliated with the Omaha GDC and The Nebraska Left Coalition Random Song From Our Friends: "Wasted On My Time" by Gamble, Gamble, Die gamblegambledie.bandcamp.com

Please support my daddy's show by donating a couple bucks to patreon.com forward slash RevLeft Radio. Please follow us on Twitter at Rev. Left Radio. And don't forget to rate and review the Revolutionary Left Radio on iTunes to increase our reach. Workers of the world, unite! We're educated, we've been given a certain set of tools, but then we're throwing right back into the working class. Well, good luck with that, because more and more of us are waking the fuck up. So we have a tendency to what we have, we have earned. And what we don't have, we are going to earn.

We unintentionally, I think, oftentimes kind of frame our lives as though we are, you know, the predestined. People want to be guilt-free. Like, I didn't do it. Like, this is not my fault. And I think that's part of the distancing from, like, people who don't want to admit that there's prejudice. When the main function of a protect and serve, supposedly group is actually revenue generation, they don't protect and serve. It's simply illogical to say that the things that affect all of us that can result in us losing our house, that can result in us not having clean drinking water, why should those be in anybody else's hands? They should be in the people's hands who are affected by those institutions. People are engaged in to overcome oppression, to fight back, and to, to, to, to, to, to, to,

identify those systems and structures that are oppressing them. God, those communists are amazing. Welcome to Revolutionary Left Radio. I am your host and comrade Brett O'Shea, and today I have on a very special guest, Dr. Bones. We're going to discuss egoist communism and some other things. Would you like to introduce yourself, Dr. Bones? Sure, my name is Dr. Bones.

I'm a crazed sorcerer, digging around in the cemeteries and Wantongong waste fields of the very odd peninsula known as Florida. I'm a gonzo journalist. I'm an egoist communist, and I believe in a violent overthrow of everything that holds me back. Wonderful. I'm super excited to have you on. As we were talking about before we started recording, you know, I've been reading a lot of your stuff, and I find a lot of it interesting. You're kind of my inlet to this egoist-communist sort of position. I haven't really had much experience with it, and I don't think a lot of my listeners have, and so I'm really excited for you to be here and kind of delve into these things and so we can all learn from you.

And I've been saying this a lot lately and I really mean it. No matter what tendency you are on the left, I think that by learning about other tendencies and instead of caricaturizing them, really seeking out the most robust defense of them and wrestling with it will only make you a better thinker and a better revolutionary, whatever your tendency may be, a better one of those because too often you just dismiss things that aren't your tendency, you reduce them to absurdities, and you actually hamstring your own intellectual development. So anyways, I'm excited to have you on is basically what I'm saying. Oh, I'm extremely excited to be here.

All right. Well, let's just go ahead and dive right into it. I guess I'll start off with some definitions for people that might not be as familiar with these ideas. What is the post-left, and what is egoist communism? Okay. Well, post-left is many things. So I think maybe the best way to describe it is it's an umbrella term for the anarchist schools of thought that have really diverged or arisen up outside of the traditional Marxist critique. A lot of people, when they think about anarchism, they're thinking sort of a rehashed 1930s Marxism, whereas, you know, about liberating the proletariat, the working class, seizing, you know, the means of production, et cetera, et In the post-left, the proletariat, the worker, is no longer the revolutionary subject par excellence.

There are other critiques going on. Now, granted, in post-left, you have a lot of different philosophies that have literally nothing to do with one another. These are just sort of anarchist schools that don't necessarily claim Marx as they're sort of patron saint. You have primitivism, which has to critique that it's not necessarily capitalism, it's not necessarily capitalism, it's not necessarily the state, but it's civilization. That is the prime fuck-up in all of humanity. One could even argue Murray Bookchin's communalism, which takes not a factory worker or even an economic producer as the revolutionary subject, but of the polis as the subject of his revolutionary world. He could almost be brought in his post-left.

And the egoist sort of thread in the post-left is that the individual is subjected to control and domination by either hierarchy and the people that maintain those positions or what Stern are called spooks, which I'm sure we'll get into later. As for egoist communism, egoist communism is sort of a two-fold thing. It has a history since the 80s by a group of sort of very weird individualists who put out a book called The Right to Be Greedy. And in it, they sort of made this idea that, you know, that the individual wasn't truly free until they basically had a very good social environment to exist. And while this seemed like a very new and novel idea of sort of weird, you know, equality-founded egoism, the idea is actually a lot older. than that. If you look into early 1900s text, or we're looking at Novotauri talking about the anarchist individualist in the social revolution, if we look at the illegalists who were directly stealing from the wealthy as a means of class warfare and who were also basically

inspiring other comrades to rise up against the rich, there's this idea of a shared means of existence being the goal with the individual as the basis and the connections and sort of everything like that that the individual can found. So egoist communism has, you know, a lot of insurrectionist tendencies, a lot of illegalist tendencies, but basically one of the best ways I've heard of describe is there can be no true individuality until the means of production have been brought into a social equality, i.e., until all of us can share in the material benefits of existence, we cannot have true into that individuality, which egoism puts us sort of the main goal. The way to do that is to establish communism, i.e. a classless, stateless society with

the abolishment of the modern economy. Okay, so in some sense, it's this individualism, but it's contextualizing it or embedding it into a collectivist context, so that this collectivist context of equality would actually offer the most opportunity for individuals to flourish to their highest degree? Is that a good way to say it or think about it? Absolutely. One of the ways I look at it is, you know, because again, egoism, you know, we're not talking about workers here. In the mind of the egoist and an egoist communism, your status as a Popeye's worker is not what we're looking to define you as. Your job doesn't define you. It just happens to be something you do for money. And especially in the modern capitalist economy, it doesn't produce anything of value.

Most of the jobs nowadays are just shuffling resources around. Even if we were to create everything worker-owned, if every Popeye's and every McDonald's was this glorious syndicate of worker-owned businesses, the workers would still basically be exploiting themselves. And really not producing much anything of value in the traditional market sense of, you know, factories making iron or ore or everything like that. So egoism says, you know, you're more than a worker. You're more than any of these identities that are fostered on you.

And, you know, a single mom working two jobs and taking care of her kids, she doesn't have the time to really become who she really is. Most of her time is spent being a worker, being a shopkeep, being a store clerk. And then when she's at home, because she doesn't have a sort of social net that can help raise her kids, she just becomes mom. So she, if there is no individual there, there's just bits and pieces obeying, these sort of defined roles. Egoist communism says if we share in the resources, if we create a sort of cartel syndicate, you know, mafia, I've used the term, mutualism without markets.

Basically, if we can get accomplices together to make our material means easier, shared goods, you know, communal property, then we can truly begin to make ourselves and enjoy the parts of life that all of us truly desire anyway. And that's one thing that, as I was reading into this, that I found very valuable. There is a tendency on the left from both Marxists and anarchists to sort of, you know, not purposefully or not maliciously, but it almost just automatically happens to reduce the individual to a worker as their primary identity.

And then to, by doing that, you almost smooth out the complexities of all that a human being is. Maybe to some extent that has a role in why we don't necessarily, I mean, I think it's growing, but while the average person on the street might not immediately identify with leftist jargon, because they don't even necessarily view themselves primarily as a worker, they view themselves a lot of times as what they do outside of work. And so I think that if we're going to reach a lot of people, you know, in the population, we're going to have to kind of step back from this almost fetishizing of the workerist identity and kind of give a more, you know, well-rounded sort of conceptual analysis of the individual.

Well, absolutely. And one of the things, you know, another metaphor I've used is, you know, a mat, you know, in traditional communism, you know, you look out across the horizon and all these buildings and all these, you know, factories, houses, and you say, ah, look, this is, this is, this is, This is the communes. This belongs to all of us. Egoist communism sort of changes that, and you have these two people looking out at the horizon at all the buildings and says,

all of this is mine and yours too. This is all ours. This is all our property together, owned equally. So instead of this sort of middleman, the commune, the worker state, whatever, this is directly yours. You own it. Those factories are yours.

You have a direct saying it because you are involved with them. Sterner has this great quote in his book that, you know, he's not talking for, he says that everyone that needs something should be involved in the production of it. And to me, that's one of the fantastically great communistic line. And so rather than alienate this idea of property,

rather than sort of, you know, oh, you know, there's no such thing as property, everything is everybody's. Well, when everything is everybody's, you get into these sort of weird, look at the Soviet Union, you know, technically, quote, unquote, everything was everybody's, but in the end it actually just ended up being the states, whereas egoist communism says, no, you can literally point to these things, you know how these things work, how they run, you have a direct say in how they run, again, a sort of mass worker cooperative model based on the individual's benefit. You know, this is, we're talking about an anarchism that pays, an anarchism that offers more than pepper spray in jail. I want accomplices that are going to get together and we're actually going to all benefit from something. Right. Yeah. And I think it might help to kind of, maybe if you have a second to tell the audience who Max Sterner is and what his contributions to communist thought

were, maybe flesh that out a little bit. Sure. Max Sterner is a very, very interesting philosopher in a couple of different ways. Max Turner was a friend of Engels and actually knew Marx. He was a member of a group called the young Hegelians. There was a specific group that was referred to as the free that would go to this wine bar, have these intense political debates, get drunk, you know. And Engels was so impressed with Max Sterner that he actually wrote poems about him. And one of the lines is that while the rest of their comrades are saying, you know, down with kings, no more kings. Sterner is the lone person standing up and saying, yes, and down with laws as well.

And so there was this very clear idea. He's taking his critique a bit further. Sterner lived a very weird life, and especially as an occultist and a sorcerer. It's really kind of weird. And sort of speaks of this maybe something else going on. Sturner, we know very little about his personal life. The only bit we have is from one biography that was collected after his death, and his wife really didn't want to talk about him,

and that was that. We have no images of Sterner. Nobody knows what he looks like. All we have to go on are hand-drawn images of Sterner that actually Engels drew. Really? So, in a weird, yeah, that's the only way we know Sterner. Wow.

So the really weird thing is Sterner's own image becomes the property of the person who viewed him, Ingalls. The only way we know of Sterner is by Engel's own conception of him, his property. Sterner really started to blow up on the internet recently through 8chan and other outlets like that through memes. So again, the individual, i.e. the user, taking Sterner's identity in his body or his face and making it their own property. So it's this weird sort of meta flow through his philosophy. And then to get even fucking weirder, according to the legend, Sterner actually died due to a beasting. so the ultimate individualist was actually killed by the ultimate collectivist very weird very very shamanic you know it's very odd but after his specific contributions max turner was a huge influence on anarchism in the early 1900s ravich hall uh the illegalists a lot of the insurrectionists he was a huge influence on novitore a little bit later on he was a gigantic influence in scottish labor unions um he was huge in

the Italian Autonomist movement, and he was also a great influence, possibly even outshadowing marks to the situationists. So again, there's this sort of shadow history of people that have been reading Sterner, but because traditional anarchism has been so focused on workerism or, you know, making Marx palpitable for people that don't necessarily want to have a Soviet cop shove a gun in their face, he's been sort of ignored. But now there's a resurgence of it. Now the sort of post-left is really becoming a wider and well-known, and globally we are seeing an increase in insurrectionist, individualist activities rather than the sort of vanguard party or union organizing that have been so loved for so long in anarchism.

And do you think what's going on right now in Hamburg, the G20 protest, how does someone from your perspective kind of wrestle with what's going on there? Is that, I mean, it seems to me at least, I would label that as almost insurrectionary. and maybe even a legalist. What would you say about that? Well, the thing, the stuff that's going on in Hamburg is beautiful. It is absolutely beautiful.

You have people, again, that are sort of coming together. There are organizations, but it's also sort of unorganized, informal organization. You know, these people that are massing in the streets in Hamburg aren't, you know, sworn to some party or obeying the commands of officers and everything like that. It's an informal organization, a union of egoist. as Sterner would say, basically people

uniting together around a common cause and none having to basically be a slave to the other. The one thing that you know, just makes me go crazy about Hamburg is to take it to a whole other

sternorist level is, yes, you've got an insurrection going on, you know, you're running cops out of the street. Sturner would say make the city your property, you know, pull a fucking Bain and seize the city. You've got 10,000 people in the goddamn streets. 10,000. You're burning cop cars. Cops can't keep up with you. Seize the property and claim it as your own. Everything

belongs to you now. Take it. All you have to do is reach out and take it. Yeah, I would love to see, I would love to see something like that as well. I think that there is, there is a sense of, you know, we talk about union of egoists or we talk about organization or the Vanguard party. To some extent, there does seem to be some weakness in this inability to maybe get people on the right track to take over a building or to start taking over chunks of territory in the city would require, and maybe I'm wrong here, some level of coherent organization or some level of here is a goal, let's all achieve it or let's work towards it. what do you think about that well and again especially in a lot of egoist thought it's it's not like we're you know against any form of organization what what the egoist critique of organization is this that everything that's done through the organization gives the organization the power to live let's do a couple examples here unions great example you know originally you know they were

designed for class warfare and all of a sudden it becomes less about class warfare more about the union itself existing. You know, all of a sudden it's more, oh, we got to do it, you know, and try to get more money into the union coffers or, hey, we got to keep, we got to, you know, keep the union afloat. You start focusing less on what the union was for and more about what the tool is. So you've sharpened this sword or you've loaded this gun and all of a sudden instead of, you know, slashing people with it or firing it, you just keep worrying about the tool.

So there needs to be some sort of organization, but I would say the FAAI, which is a which is probably the world's largest anarchist sort of revolutionary organization. It's an informal one. It's just picked up by comrades as they go and as they act. Has shown that this sort of method of organization is successful. But again, I think what you're seeing in Hamburg and a lot of other anarchist struggles is, again, this sort of egoist critique, they're fighting a symbolic battle. Okay?

You are literally on the cusp of taking Hamburg. A city is in your hands, but instead you are fighting to show your rulers that you're upset. Egoism says, why? Why do you need to prove to them anything? Why are you in a conversation with them? We're battling with symbols. You know, like it's a capitalism is a symbol. It's this intangible thing that we never get to touch, but somehow we feel.

Whereas the ego says, no, it's not. You have a boss. Get him. You have a workplace. Get him. It's like Utah Phillips said, you know, the people poisoning and killing the earth, they have names and addresses. This isn't some religious ideal that, you know, we sort of can, you know, oh, damn, just like you would some sort of, some biblical devil, you know. Egoism says, get back down to the brass tax. Get back down to direct action and what it, you know, actually means. So, again, specifically in Hamburg, you have all this violence. all of this, you know, mass seizing of power, literally the people on the cusp of a new Paris commune. And my question is, what now? You've got the people, you've got the bodies, but these people can probably walk away feeling like they've accomplished something. Why? Because they're dealing with a symbolic object. They have shown the world power, again, a sort of spook and intangible thing, or the, you know, the capitalist powers or the, you know,

global market forces, whatever. Again, this sort of intangible, weird thing that exists in their minds, it's an idea. They think, aha, we showed them. Well, who's them? You almost showed them. You got some people with names and addresses scared, but all you did was fight a symbol with actual physical results. If this had been a, you know, compare that with the Zapatistas, you know, when they rose up.

concrete objectives. This town, this town, this town is going to be liberate. We're going to seize this territory. It's ours now. We're going to defend it. There was no symbolic Mexican government. It was a real Mexican government with real cops, real soldiers that needed to be contained and or killed. I think that's the jump that anarchism sort of needs to make. And I think slowly and steadily we're getting there. Yeah, fuck yeah. And I love this reference to the Zapatistas because they're doing it right. Rojavan Kurds are

doing it right in my opinion. There's different context, of course, and there's critiques to be made about everything in the world, but yeah, but they're actually concerned with seizing territory and then building, you know, their communes or socialism or however you want to phrase it. What you just said right there actually speaks is actually a critique of something that I've been writing in defense of Hamburg because I myself have been framing it as this like symbolic confrontation with the I mean the confrontation with the state is non-symbolic it's physical and tangible

but it's like a symbol of our of our resistance or that you know these these huge nation states can have their little meeting but we're gonna give them a fucking headache we're gonna give them a bloody nose we're gonna we're gonna take the every story that's written about the G20 meeting now has to include the fact that the fucking city is on fire and in some sense yes it is largely symbolic I agree

with you and I totally agree with you that there should be some sort of seizing of of territory build on this momentum you have people coming from Italy and and the Nordic states into Germany to to you know confront the G20 well you have a lot of comrades on the streets there start taking shit over so I think that's that's extremely interesting before we go any further though quickly maybe could we just put some definitions of insurrectionism and a legalism on the table because they've already come up and they might come up later in this conversation Sure. Insurrectionism is a sort of current, an anarchist thought, has strong egoist frames, may not necessarily declare itself egoist. You have, if you're looking for specific writers, you have Bonanno, who's an Italian anarchist, you have, if you're looking for physical actors, you have this conspiracy of cells of fire, which are a, and a, I'm literally only using this term for the lack of a better term, a group of

anarchist terrorists that are basically making the revolution. Okay, you know, perfect example. In the U.S., we have protests. The conspiracy of cells of fire mailed bombs to the IMF. The FAA, the informal anarchist Federation, you know, translated to English from Italian, there was a nuclear power plant being built. There were protests. The FAA went up to one of the guys that was building the nuclear power plant

and blew his kneecap out with a 9mm. Okay? These are, it's, it's no symbol, it's concrete things. So insurrectionism also says there can be no transition period. Zero. Insurrectionism says we, that the only thing we learn by waiting is to wait. The world is out there. Power has weak points. Instead of necessarily building organizations for the sake of building organizations that will only eventually keep asking for more of our time and more of our own existence to keep. funding them, let's go out and attack. And there's a central theory behind this, a really tactical one that does stand up in sort of a lot of military thought. The idea of the anarchist attack is that by creating these instances of insurrection, these riots, these bombings, these shootings, anyone that views that event is forced to make a choice. Do you stand with the oppressor

or do you stand with the liberated? So essentially, any of these sort of middle of the road people, you end up having to make a choice. And, you know, they have to go down a certain route. As for illegalism, illegalism was a current running in the early 1900s, especially in France, and it was heavily influenced by Sterner. The idea was that, you know, the individual would basically seize the means of their own existence from class enemies any way they could. And this was often through armed robbery, bank robberies. You know, these people refused to live in accordance with the laws of the state. They didn't organize

in these mass organizations. There was no, you know, illegalist guild. There were networks of individuals that knew each other that could count on each other. I mean, they pulled off some amazing heights. You know, an entire network of burglars that basically only prayed on rich priests,

churches, and then they donated a bit of their stuff for anarchist propaganda. So the illegalists had this. The big contention was rather than the working class rising up as a whole unit. The illegalists made the case that, you know, where have we seen this? Only rarely.

Why are we betting our entire lives and our existence on a human event we've only seen a handful of times? Why should I, who was already an anarchist, who already wants to be free, sit on my ass and wait for the rest of the working class to suddenly become conscious? I am going to make my attack now. I am going to seize everything that has been stolen from me.

now i'm going to find comrades that wish to do so with me and i am going to live i must live i must develop myself i must live my life for me that was the illegalist thrust it was a very heroic thrust there were plenty of sort of tactical errors along the way but it is the sort of background on the ideas uh that came from it are very interesting and again come from a sort of egoist line of thought yeah i mean that i there's a black part of my heart that that just flutters when you when you talk like that i i very much am sympathetic with with that line of reasoning a critique might be um a notion of winning over hearts and minds and that you know insurrection or you know illegalism um that these these are alienating to the broad swaths of the population and therefore

ultimately undermining of any movement towards liberalism and in fact, some would argue it may hurt, you know, advancements for the liberation of people. I'm not necessarily saying that that's what I think. I'm just saying that that might come out when other people might hear this, depending on their position. What do you have to say about the hearts and minds argument? Well, first I'd say, I don't think that's necessarily correct. From my own experience, I wrote an article about on illegalism back when Kim Kardashian got robbed. And as I understand, I think it was a fake event now.

but when I wrote it, people were overjoyed that Kim Kardashian had been robbed a gunpoint, okay? The wealthy, this isn't the 1980s where everybody thinks they can be a stockbroker. You know, the United States is slowly drifting from first world status, and the people are pissed, and they're angry, and they don't necessarily like the wealthy anymore. Look, right after you had the economic crash, you had these jobs like, oh, undercover boss, there was this huge psychological push to make the wealthy, huge. human again. And so your average person, I mean, come on, you know, you look at some of these people, I can tell you especially, and I know you're a member of the working class too, you go down

to a 7-Eleven and you rob that place. Those people don't give a shit. They're, you know, they're not going to die for that money. They know it's not their money. It's just like when you had the riots in Ferguson and they burned down, what was it, a Walgreens. They, you know, we're talking to someone there and they said, you know, people keep talking about, you know, oh, don't hurt your neighborhood. This isn't our neighborhood. We don't own this wall This is owned by some white dude that lives out of here and basically he takes all the money from us. Fuck that guy. Hearts and Mines is a much large, a lot of anarchists, again, they lack this sort of military style thinking.

They haven't really read up on what psychological operations really are. It's not merely this sort of like, hey, always be good sort of thing. And if you look at like units like Hezbollah, if you look at units like a lot of the insurgencies in Iraq and everything like that. It's not a sort of Gandhi-esque, hey, we're just going to be nice to the American soldiers. No, these motherfuckers are putting bullets in people. And it's all about framing. And again, we're sort of seeing this rise in the United States now with this sort of, you know, you have Brett Bart, you have Info Wars, you've got the Daily Stormer. So an event happens. And these different ideologies rush in to determine a narration of the event. And this is important

because a couple of years ago, the CIA had started publishing papers on this, the power of storytelling, everything like that. So hearts and minds isn't just like being good or anything like that. It's about narration. It's about controlling the narrative. So you can do almost anything in the world as long as you control the narrative. And again,

this sort of doubles back in a sterner-ass thought. Let's look at murder. All right? We're going to give a little example here. Now, if I dress up in a uniform and I get shipped out to some God-forsaken desert and I blow the brains out of some person I've never met, never had a problem with,

But I do it in the name of the state, and there's an entire culture behind me and a flag and song that says, hey, he was, he's not only did he do the right thing, he's a good guy for doing it. Well, guess what? That murder doesn't matter. I'm a fucking hero, right? We'll change it around. Now, if I am a young black man that is tired of seeing my friends and family harassed by police officers or other people in other neighborhoods literally being killed by them, and I go out into. you know, Texas, and I kill five cops. Well, now the forces of the state, they change that story.

Oh, it's some madman. It's some crazed guy. You know, these cops were fallen heroes. They control the narrative. Anarchists for a long time have, you know, stayed away from the media and everything like that. And in our interconnected world, you can't really do that. We've lost so much control of the narrative. So again, if the argument was, well, you know, how do we know bombing an American government,

you know, whatever, wouldn't. alienate people. Well, it only alienates them if you allow the state to alienate them. If you sing these people as heroes, if you really, you know, look at how the IRA is thought of in Ireland. They aren't thought of as some, you know, a bunch of crazy people that just didn't understand that everything can be solved through voting. These people are heroes because there was a organized effort to make the people aware of their heroism. So, again, it's sort of a very, as a journalist, you know, a view of like, look, hearts and minds are going to be won by a specific type of work. It doesn't happen overnight. You have to have specific units and bodies of people that make

sure that those hearts and minds are getting your message. If anarchism does not have groups of people that are able to repeat its message, control the narrative, and get it out to the masses, their actions are worthless anyway, and they wouldn't have any impact. Yeah, what you were just saying, they reminded me when Heath Ledger played the Joker in the Dark Night, he has that little segment in the movie where he talks about, you know, if a military caravan gets blown up, you know or some members of a gang get shot to death nobody bats an eye because it's all part of the plan but if you kill one little mayor

you know suddenly everyone loses their mind and exactly that kind of reminded me of that okay so moving on a bit because I really want to get into this because I am fascinated by this but from an egoist point of view what are the main criticisms of Marxism and non-egoist forms of anarcho-communism all right

we'll start out with Big One number one workerism. So the masses, the people are primarily viewed as economic units. Marx's whole critique, which basically holds that literally all of human history. Every, you know, ejaculation, every, you know, rock painting has this sort of weird economics impulse running through everything. And so Marxist theory, you know, comes to the people and only seems to talk to them in economic units. And again, especially that sort of nowadays becomes kind of outdated when so much of our lives are no longer economically focused. You know, millennials don't want to be defined by their jobs. As automation increases, our jobs literally won't be around for us to be defined by. So egoism says that

Marxist-leaning forms of anarchism focused too much on individuals, real human beings with hopes and dreams and some things that can't even be quantified in an economic, you know, theory and boils everything down to them being a worker. Not only that, a lot of these anarcho-communists, their society that they wish to create is, again, structured around the workplace. Okay, anarchist revolution happens tomorrow. You work at Popeyes. That's your main organizing unit to interact with the rest of society. I'm the guy that fries chicken. We just liberated ourselves. the bourgeois that you're hanging from lamp posts and my role in the society

the one that I get to vote from is in between frying legs and thighs for the rest of you people that's terrible. Who the hell wants that future? Secondly, to sort of you know leap onto that, again, Marx's

sort of religious concept of history, which I think through a practical experience has been shown to be complete garbage. You know, Trotsky was talking about, oh, World War II, definitely going to lead to worldwide revolution and if it doesn't well we really got to ask some questions well yeah we've had so many impulses of uh revolution we've had so many chances for the workers to rise up and they they don't or the revolution gets crushed and there's this weird idea that in marxist sort of leaning

anarchist circles that all we got to do is hold on and somehow the workers the people which are just inundated with you know consumerist propaganda and you know mind-numbing entertainment will magically read, you know, the communist manifesto, totally awaken up to consciousness, and be rearing to go. There's this, you know, it's a very sort of religious idea that the workers are this sort of grand revolutionary unit that have been blessed, and they're always going to battle the bourgeoisie, and they're always going to win because it's inevitable. It's just the way history works. History doesn't work like that. In egoism, there is no teleological principles.

There is no end of history. Nothing is determined. everything is open in the air as possibility as it exists right now again also as we discussed earlier this idea of an in-between state egoism specifically egoist communism insurrectionary anarchism illegalism says absolutely hell fucking no to any goddamn transition state don't tell me that we need cops on the street hitting people with nightsticks before we get to the actual anarchy. Every experience with these transition states has been god-awful. Now, some people may point to, you know, Rojava, the Zapatis, again, these people, to be fair to a lot of anarchists,

you know, Rojava is not necessarily looking to create a sort of anarcho-communist state. Again, they've sort of melded it with Bookchin's theories. They're not saying that they want to eliminate Rojava as a sort of political body, which is where a lot of egoists, they don't want any political bodies. They just want free unions of individuals. So we don't want new managers that just happen to be anarchists. We don't want new laws to be run by the commune. We don't want people's prisons. We don't want that. And a transition state basically says, well, we have to keep certain aspects of capitalism in place until we can actually be free. We saw where that went with the Soviet Union. We don't want to go down there again. And again, an earlier critique I made

as well. The organization, these anarcho-communist groups or communists in general, it's the organization that lives, not you. You live for the organization. You live for the working class. It's not so much important about your life. It's the grand revolution. That may never come. And so you bleed and you spend your time for these organizations. You donate money. You work and work. And again, the organization always seems to have new needs. There's always something that needs to be done to keep the organization afloat because it sort of becomes its own living thing egoists say get away from that you know let's just organize around action if we need to do something let's get together informally we don't need officers we don't need you know some ridiculous ass occupy hand signs

to communicate with one another and let's just get shit done after we're done with it if we want to be finished and walk our own separate ways we can okay yeah i think that yeah i think that's a critique that I have some serious sympathy with. There would be, like, if this is not a debate, so I'm not going to get into it, but, you know, I'm sure there are Marxist and anarcho-communists that would have replies to some of those critiques, and maybe in a later date we can do an episode where we kind of respond to different things because, but, I mean, a lot of what I've been doing is having different tendencies on and just letting them explain.

So I've had an anarchist episode. I've had a Maoist episode. This is my egoist episode. I'm looking forward to a Marxist-Leninist episode. I just like to get these ideas out on the table, and I think you give a robust defense of your position. But it does lead to one question I do have, you know, given the fact that there is still a lot of class struggle, you know, centered around the workplace currently, is there still room for unionism, minimum wage increases and other forms of labor-centered activism, in your opinion? And how would an egoist approach these issues in a way that differs from more orthodox leftist approaches? that's the thing

this is a big misconception about egoism and the post left in general just because we don't just because we don't believe the proletariat has literally been chosen by you know quetzekwadal to lead

a new Aztec nation across the world and into the heavens that suddenly we don't give a fuck about anybody you know what I mean no absolutely here's the thing remember egoism is centered around you the individual are you if you are suffering under a boss

you need to get rid of that suffering hierarchy is bad we are against all forms of hierarchy wherever they are class exists class is a form of hierarchy and this is really where egoist communism hits that communist bit because you know you have a lot of egoists that sort of you know

red max sterner in between you know masturbating to anne rand and they got the two messages confused and so they walk around they think that Max Sterner's just talking about fuck everybody else you know fuck everybody get money

but that's not true and if you look at Sterner's works Sterner literally says we are not opposed to socialism we are opposed to sacred socialism we are not opposed to love we are opposed to sacred love so I am all for

the diversified tactics of class warfare and I think again the only union I have ever respected is the IWW and you know their idea of wildcat strides of sort of, okay, we're not going to rely on the other unions or even other workplaces to get what you need. You know, you may be the only organized shop of whatever store you happen to work at. You may not be able to declare your union formally, and the egoist would ask why,

you know, why even bother? But you can, you know, organize together as workers to fight for what's yours, to reclaim what's yours. Sterner has this huge piece in the ego and his own. And I've had to break it down on my website that i wrote a specific article and anyone listening to this who you know is interested in sort of how sterners ideas towards leftist thought um go ahead and google the sternner wasn't a capitalist you fucking idiot cheat sheet that's the name of the article um and i break down all these different parts of where sterner is basically explicitly saying he is in favor of the workers taking back everything they can any way they can i'm absolutely for strikes i'm absolutely for unions, I'm absolutely for minimum wage increases because, again, we are in a long-term struggle

for the benefit of our own selves. Now, where the egoist differs is exactly this. When our workplace is shitty and the union tells us, well, I know you guys are having a hard time, but the union voted that you can't straight. You can't. I'm sorry. The egoist says, well, what if, no, I'm not giving up my ability of autonomy to some, spooky union that suddenly decides what we workers can and cannot do. Right. And yes. Center your struggle in yourself and confront the powers of the world with your own ears, hands, and eyes.

If that takes the form of fight, you know, I've heard from some egoists, you know, because I talk about health care and stuff. Oh, well, you know, why should we be fighting for better health care? Aren't we ultimately against, you know, the state in all forms of meandering? And, you know, I say, well, yes, of course we are. People dying of cancer usually gets in the way of them, you know, fighting for an anarchist utopia. Right. So the egoist takes freely whatever the hell he can. Take everything you can in any way you can to ultimately make yourself free.

If that's being in a union, sure, go for it. But don't think that the union owns you and don't let yourself autonomy be ruled by the union. Egoists can be a part of almost any tendency, but they are beholden to none. Right. Yeah, I like what you said about the IWW a lot. You know, I'm a member of the IWWGDC here in Omaha. I have a tattoo on my arm of the black cat of the IWW pinning down at one of those don't tread on me snakes, just to kind of honor the working class heritage that I come out of.

And they have a slogan that says, we don't organize the workplace, we organize the worker. And that seems highly conducive with, with, you know, the egoist, communist perspective when it comes to unionizing so i'm glad that you i'm glad that you said that well yeah and not only that remember um the a lot of the scottish labor unions actually organized through egoism so it wasn't necessarily that hey we're part of this grand uh labor revolution the scottish workers said hey i want more money this guy is taking the value we produce let's get together and force him through our power to give us more it's as simple as that and that's basically that That was a whole sort of anarcho-sindicalist organizing.

It was all based around Sterner's thoughts. So Sterner is not inimical to any of this. His theories and ideas fit perfectly within it. Yeah, awesome. Super interesting. So let's move on now. There's a, it's whenever egoism or Max Sterner get brought up online or anywhere else, this notion of spooks comes up.

People use it, you know, people joke about it, people throw it out a lot. But would you go ahead and let us know what are spooks and what role do they play in egoism? Sure. All right, spooks, not only is it just a great word to, you know, just scream at anybody. You know, nice spooks nerd. You know, I mean, like, who does it? It's a great way to just ignore someone or shut down a conversation

if you have literally zero interest in talking to someone. So even if you don't like Sturner, keep it in your back pocket. You may want to use it. But in a serious note, a lot of Sturner's ideas center around the central idea of spooks. So, again, a spook is a fixed. idea, an idea that has become sacred, that is invalienable, that is unquestionable, that simply must be. And again, we're not against socialism, we're against sacred socialism. So I'll give a couple of examples here. You know, we talked about the state. You know, you have a guy

sitting in a chair, he's got a bud light open, you know, he's got track marks down his arm, and he's like, yeah, serve my country. God damn, God bless America. You know, that guy, he's God blessing fucking nothing. You know, he got his leg blown off for, like, a couple of people that wanted to make money. And kind of, like, screw-rider. He is literally watching his friends die for an idea, a little, like, fiction in his head. You know, it's like if this guy had read Harry Potter, and was like, well, goddamn, I'm going out for Gander. Well, not Gandoff, but, you know what, yeah, no, we'll say he's so ill-red that he thinks,

I'm going to die for Gansaw, hell, yeah. you know that's basically what and everyone would be like you're you're fucking a madman you know this is just a book dude we can take that a step further okay another great example whiteness okay whiteness is a spook it's intangible it's false you can look at how in the united states that uh you had these immigrant uh communities like the irish the italians who were originally denied white status so you had a racial case that saw these other immigrants and said well you're not white. You know, what is white? Well, it's what we are. And then over the years, oh, well, now Italians are white. Now Irish are white. And so it's what, you see all these alt-right people organize, oh, you know, identity, Europa. Whiteness is a spook. It's an intangible thing. It's a phantasm

in your mind that doesn't actually exist. It's the shape of an idea. It's a category that you fill with all these preconceived notions and ideas. And somehow, it's become the sole measure of your entire being. That is a spook. Whiteness is a spoof. Gender. Another great one. Okay. Mailness, right? You have these people, huh, you know, I'm a man, I got to do what a man does, what is a man? What is a man? It's this idea. It's this idea you have in your head of what a man is and what a man does and what a man looks like and this, that, and the other. That's spook. You are literally changing your behavior, changing yourself, denying yourself, you know, denying yourself the ability to cry, denying yourself the ability to be soft because you are beholden to this false

idea rising up in your head. Now all of those are sort of ideas that a lot of anarchists are familiar with, but let's take it another step further that a lot of anarchists aren't comfortable with. Society. And this is a big egoist critique. It's maybe something that separates it from a lot of anarchist strains because anarcho-communists, all these other groups, they are trying to create a more just society. Well, the egoist says, well, you're just as spooked as any statist is. Because what society are you fighting for? The United States is the arbitrary drawing of the line. That's it. There are a multitude of peoples within it, with differing tastes, different ideas, different ideologies. The people in New Orleans might as well be aliens to the people in

New Brunswick. Okay? Sharing a language, maybe. But beyond that, the culture's different, the food's different. These people are nothing alike. We can go down to Florida, okay? The panhandle is totally different from the south. Totally different. They barely share anything in common. You go down into any one of those regions and you find these micro fractures of everything like that. Sterner makes the case in his book that he uses the example of a prison. What makes a prison society? The walls and buildings of the prison. That's it. It's literally manufactured out of thin air. Before you go to a prison, you have no contact with prison. society it doesn't exist for you you go into a prison suddenly you are a member of society you know nothing about have nothing in common with but all of a sudden bam you're in sterner also makes the case well what what creates this sort of camaraderie among inmates it's what he calls intercourse and this is a to break that example out let's use a party okay you go to a party everybody's been to a couple of parties where it fucking sucks because

nobody knows each other there's like a stuffiness let's say the best example is this is an party, a company party. You're there with other people that you don't know that you don't necessarily like, but because you're part of this false society of whatever the hell your company is, it's just assumed that you're all kind of sort of alike. They put you in a room and you kind of like stare at the wall, make small talk, et cetera, et cetera. Whereas if you have what Sterner calls intercourse and you go to a party of friends that actually share things in common, share feelings, share mutual affections, that's what's real. And it's those same behaviors that sort of of get played upon and toyed with it amplified by the forces of society because it knows it

can't create them on their own. The hell's angels is much more to what people perceive as a society than anything the United States or the People's Republic of China is. You know, one's a complete fiction. The other is definitely a hierarchical fiction, but that at least has a substrata of actual camaraderie and individual mixing in it. So again, any of these sort of ideas that seem to be above you that have almost no basis in a material existence that make claims upon who you are, what you can do, how you can act, basically look for any moral authority that happens to dress itself up politically, and you'll have a good idea of what a spook is.

Yeah, now you mentioned Hell's Angel, and you said that that is, in some sense, more authentically a community than nation-states. what role does what is a union of egoists and how would you situate that into the concept of spooks and false concepts of society and whatnot perfect example up there's a couple of examples of unions of egoists children playing a game now they get together they're not forced to get together they've decided the rules of the game amongst themselves and no one can say any of those children are sacrificing themselves for the ideal of the game every time you go out for a drink with your friends as a group that's a union of egoists

are you are you out of duty out of sacrifice going to this no even if it's out of your way you do so why because it brings you joy to aid your friend you enjoy these people's company this is for your benefit you enjoy their company you enjoy helping them out you know another great example of a union of egoists which again you know clearly clearly my sort of a legalist fetish here. Oceans 11. Great example. An informal organization of multi-different individuals who are beholden to no ideology but have a specific goal. In this case, a specific crime. Now, granted, there seem to be some idiosyncrasies with some people calling the shots and everything like that. But again, we don't have any specific offices. There's no president. There's no gang leader that everybody has to pay fealty to.

So this sort of idea of individuals coming together for specific purposes were all benefit that all enjoy, we could look at a lot of GoFundMe's. Those are interesting examples of unions of egoists because you are donating or giving to this project because it pleases you to do so. This project necessarily doesn't make any claims on you. It doesn't decide that you must live your life a certain way. you enjoy it, you take part in it, you know, use it to gain benefits, whether they be a personal benefit, an intellectual benefit, maybe you just like the stuff that comes with it. You know, Sterner said that these union, a society makes its claim on you. A union of egoists is instead an instrument, a tool, a sword for you to increase your own power. And I think that's really the defining difference between a union of egoists and a society. Am I a cog, a part of this organization, or is this organization a creation of myself and others where we are freely mixing it together, creating it? It's something that I can cut off, I can, you know, disappear from, I can tell to go to hell, and am I directly benefiting from it? Am I a free individual in it?

yeah one thing i was going to ask you about that the kind of maybe might fit into this this exact conversation i've i don't know much about it but i've heard the term the unique capital you um what exactly is that for people who have no idea what that is and does that play any role in this conception of a union of egoists ah the unique uh yes um the unique is what's interesting about sterner is when he was studying under hagel um it appears that at some point hegel busted out some eastern philosophy just for the hell of it and um it looks like that had an extreme influence on sterner and a lot of people involved in the sort of iguous malo have really started to call max sterner almost the loud sue of the west

the unique he uses the term unique and he has this amazing passage where he talks about um basically um let's say you have a name let's say there's a guy named bob Right? The name Bob doesn't describe him. He's more than just a name. Let's say Bob is a Puerto Rican guy. While he may be a Puerto Rican guy, Puerto Rican doesn't fully express who Bob is. Neither does his maelness, neither does his height, neither does his weight. Bob is unique. He's a ever-flowing font of many different forces and interactions changing from every minute. He's his laughter under the moon. He's how he holds his kids at night when they're scared. He's that one time he ate too much chili and he never eats it again. Bob is something undescribable. He's this inner core, this beautiful essence that's inside all of us that defies all labels and all expectations. And Sterner says, base your entire life on that. Take that inner light within you, that sort of way, that Wu In Taoism, there's this term Wu Wei, you know, it's this effortless action, not held back by anything.

You know, in Taoism, there's also this concept of the self that's totally different from Buddhism, where Buddhism says, you know, give up your entire self to the greater essence, because all of life is suffering. In Taoism, you and the Tao are one. I, myself, and the tree outside are one, but neither negates the other. my entire expression of myself is in the sort of current and ultimate expression of the universe if i am limiting myself if i'm hampering myself with uh you know unneeded struggle or ideology i'm cutting off that supreme essence from myself i'm damaging myself i'm hurting myself almost like high diggers um i think it's pronounced daison dyson yeah yeah um so

the unique is ultimately these unions of the egoists are places where you are allowed to be unique you know um you are allowed to be yourself in every way you are you the true you is really embraced the same way you embrace a friend you know you know a lot of us especially in the anarchist community you know we meet comrades and we view them as strictly sort of intermediaries between what we want in the anarchist world you know are you going to help me with this am i going to help you with that what kind of you know meetings and everything like that we're going to go to. Sturner says, you know, fuck that.

We are looking for friends, loves, real accomplices, the people around you in your union of egoists. You know deeply. There's a, to sort of piggyback onto an occult idea, the Greeks have two words for knowledge. I think they have one more, but we'll only focus on them too. They have a regular knowledge that translates to something like, you know algebra. Right? If you know algebra, you know how it works, you know, basically, you know, how to, you know, how

to do this, that or the other. Now let's say you know your brother. That's a different kind of knowledge. That's called Nosis. When you say you know your brother, that means that you've tapped into years of living with this person and you know the deep inner character

of him. In the same way in the occult community, Nosis was this idea of, you know, true knowledge of the godhead. Not just words on paper, but you felt it. You knew in an indescribable way what it was. Just like if you had experienced a a ghost you have a nosis of the afterlife it's beyond words it's beyond mere technical descriptions

and so the unique is the individual's ultimate nosis both to themselves and to the world so in an occult sense and again sort of go back to the union of egoist sense we are seeking nosis we are seeking our true selves and my true self can only be accessed when i'm not necessarily limited by my material conditions so egoist communism in a sense is almost an outreached hand and I'm saying I cannot be me until you are also you and if we can just get past all the bullshit and really unite and really work together and really be free wouldn't that be a better life for all of us yeah that that that bordered on the poetic that was that was well said um so

this is the thing we're bumping up against an hour usually we go for about an hour an hour and 20 minutes I really love what this is so far I have one or two more questions of course but there's this whole other part of the outline that I had for me and you where we discussed paganism and Carl Jung and current events and Mussolini and Trump and human nature and all this other stuff and that's going to be a whole episode in and of itself so if it's all right with you I'll ask one or two more questions and then maybe have you back on in a couple weeks and delve into all these other

questions that I have. I think that you're extremely well spoken and you're super interesting and I don't want to condense what's left of this outline in such a way that it doesn't do it justice. So would it be okay with you if we just do one more question or so? End this, cut this

off as an entire episode about egoism and then have you on in a few weeks to discuss other aspects of your worldview? Oh, fuck yeah, dude. Absolutely. Okay, I'm happy about that. This is so interesting. I can't wait to have you back on. I'm glad.

I'm glad. And this show's not even over. All right. So one of the last questions for this episode, a big point that egoists and post-leftists bring up is the notion that we shouldn't fetishize our role as worker, something we've touched on earlier. And instead, we should aim to be fully liberating or liberated from having to work at all. You know, I largely agree with this, and I'm sympathetic with that critique. But what role does the specter of hyper automation play?

in that thought process and how, in your opinion, will automation affect the working class and thus leftist politics over the next several decades? That's a big question, I'm sorry. Oh, no, it's not a big question. The answer is one hope of extreme importance because here's the thing. So much of leftist thought, again, has been based around this worker. We are a couple of reports that I've seen and I've written about this numerous articles. We are looking at in about eight years.

Eight, nine years given, maybe average reports in Forbes and stuff like that. 45% of customer service jobs are going to be automated. 45%. Customer service is the largest industry in the United States. So in the largest industry in the United States, 45% of the people are going to be out of work. In an age where we are ripping apart the social safety, what are these people going to fall on to?

Nothing. absolutely nothing. I mean, it's sort of like the frog boiling in the pot. You know, it's kind of normal now. You remember when it wasn't normal to work two jobs? You remember when it wasn't normal to like work two jobs and have a side hustle? We've got people working two jobs and in between working for Uber. Okay? That is a falling economy. That is big, big danger. We have basically two roads. One road is we embrace automation. But instead of leaving it in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the workers rise up and they seize the means of automation. We stand on a precipice, machines, robots, everything will give us a chance to devote our lives to everything we have always thought beneficial. It is not your time at Popeye's frying chicken that defines you as a person. It is not your time at the auto mechanic that defines you as a person. We will be living in a space age world where almost every desire, material desire can be accomplished and built the little effort of our own. We stand on the

precipice of having art and creativity stand as the hallmarks of what it means to be human. All of that is within our grasp. And yet, if we do not grasp it, if within these trying, trying years ahead of us, and I'm not talking about 100 years, I'm not talking about 1,000 years, and I'm certainly not talking about some Marxist dialectic. I'm talking about real, material. conditions. If the anarchists and all the other leftists do not work on this, if they are not prepared to seize this automation, and if we leave it in the hands of the wealthy, as it is with Uber, as it is with shipped, as it is with Lyft, I mean, especially to sort of sidetrack for a minute, what do you think is going to happen when cars become automated?

Exactly. The CEO of Uber, who, as I understand is now stepped down, has already said his real goal is to basically make an automated car platform. It'll be cheaper to get a self-driving Uber than it will be to own a car. There goes all the factories. There goes millions of different industries. Tens of millions of jobs. Yeah,

millions. Okay? If the left does not seize this integral moment of history, we will be damning ourselves

and future generations to a hellscape we can only imagine in the darkest of dreams, okay? Imagine 200 people competing, clawing, fighting with kids, starving

behind them for a job with no benefits that pays below minimum wage. That's the future. That's the future ahead of us unless the left gets its shit together and actually starts seizing. And it's not a matter of, again, some religious idea.

This is on the cut. Our generation is on the cusp of it. This is our true great challenge. Everything from Occupy to everything else has been leading up to this. We've all been slowly boiling in this pot and realizing that the economy is getting fucked. And all these rich people in Silicon Valley and everything like that, they know what the score is.

And they're putting everything they can into making sure that all that technology stays out of our hands. Why? They've got all the money. in the world. They don't need anymore because it's about control. It's about power because these machines stand to liberate humanity, but they don't think you deserve to be limited. They don't think you deserve to be free. I want to speak to you, dear listener for a minute, you whoever's listening to this podcast, all of those people that own that power, those machines don't think

you deserve to be free. Right now, wherever you are, they think you deserve to be there. They think you are nothing more than a beast of burden, no greater than the worst Egyptian slave. you exist to serve them and they will make sure that you continue to and if machines have to do it if literally you have to work three or four jobs just to feed your children they will be more than happy to see you do that

rather than watch any ounce of you rise up so you have a choice you have a choice to your listener and it exists every day because you are running against the clock the right has already beaten you in guns and ammunition you are almost 15 years behind you need to get your shit to together now because if you miss this opportunity the planet earth as you know it the worst 80s

sci-fi could not even begin to touch what you'll be up against and at that point you'll begin talking about the revolutionary capabilities of suicide oh fuck yeah it it it will it will create a neo feudalism we will actually go backwards the way that will be concentrated in the hands of the very top, the owners, quote unquote, of the fucking machines that centuries of human technological progress and human labor gave rise to, a very small number of fucking vampires at the very top are salivating over the prospect of grabbing those and profiting off of them indefinitely. And you are going to have a rise of a new, and this is not even hyperbolic, a new hereditary, monarchic sort of situation. one of the ways that they're trying to buy us off, in my opinion, is this UBI. They think that if they can just automate as much labor as possible, profit off it, and then hand us out little handouts in the form of a UBI,

that it will satiate vast swaths of the population to the extent that they will no longer become a threat. And so on top of everything that the honorable Dr. Bones just said, which I could not agree with more, we also have to, I mean, welcome. them the ubi i mean don't dismiss it in its entirety because certainly it gives us leverage that we can use but critically engage with the concept and realize that a ubi is not the end-all be-all it's going to be if it's not the worst sort of dystopia possible it's going to be this next level where they just give us these these little you know crumbs from from their table in the form of a ubi to pacify us and we'll all be sitting in our small-ass apartment staring at our

endless array of possible television shows why they fucking run the world so and jacking off to anime absolutely absolutely well let's go ahead and end it there because i don't think there's any there's any better way to end that um but before we do end i want to give you a chance my friend to to plug any of your work and your websites and maybe recommend something for people who want to learn more about anything we've discussed today all right so My writing can be found at gods and radicals.org or theconjurehouse.com. If any of this conversation, literally any of this podcast has touched you in any way or sounds like it makes any sense, or if you literally just want to see how fucking crazy a sorcerer super-doped up on communism can get.

I highly, highly advise you to get my book. It's on sale at gods and radicals.com. It's called Curse your boss, hex the state, take back. the world. It deals extensively with egoist communism. It also deals with a lot of occultism. And there's a section in it that I am legally not allowed to discuss because I may go to jail for it. We're still kind of figuring that out. But if you were ever interested in anarchist terrorism, boy howdy, this will be the book to get. Also, if you're interested in any other sort of things that we've talked about, anarchist library, look at anything written by Novitori,

read everything you can possibly get your hands on by any illegalist study what the bonnet gang was doing and there's also an excellent book called enemies of society by ardent press if you want to grab that there's some doo-do parts that are kind of capitalistic but if you take out the do-do and you just focus on the egoistic stuff it's fantastic highly advise that as well all right brother well thank you so much for coming on this has been a fucking hell of a conversation I'm so happy that I got directed towards your work. I do want to give a shout out to Chloe P. She's a close friend of mine, a 17-year-old radical.

She's fucking awesome, and she was the one that introduced me to Dr. Bones' writings and his websites. So thank you, Chloe. You're awesome. But yeah, please come on again. Let's have you back for reoccurring episodes because there's a lot to talk about and there's so much that we did not get to. So if you'd be willing to come back, I'd be so honored. Oh, absolutely 100%.

I am always ready in the meth-fueled swamp lands of Florida to reach out to the wider world. All right, well, you got a comrade here in Omaha forever. When you come down here sometime, we'll have to get drunk and eat alligator. Fuck, yeah. All right, man. Talk to you later.

See you later. I've got a coffee stain and I'm going to mind I've got a two dollar shirt I wear it all the time Even at my peak I ate out of her trough And all I got to show

Is this a cosmetic cough So why, I, I, I, I don't be curious to mind if I, if I, if I'm waiting on my time, my time, my time, Hi! Ah! Oh! Hey! Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to be. I'm going to be. I've got rice I've got rice crispy bones They snap, crackle and pop

When I go off the dog I got tackled by car So I'm I I I Give it my mind if I'd be fine If I'm wasting

Wasted it all my life My time My time Ah You know what I'm going to be.