The Crisis of Altruism: A Measured Response to David Brooks




On April 21,2017 David Brooks, an Op-Ed columnist from the New York Times, published a opinion piece titled “The Crisis of Western Civ.” I felt the need to respond to this specifically because he seems to not understand why “The West” is acting the way it is and how many of these people seem to blame others for the problems of the world . With that being said here is my response

“Between 1935 and 1975, Will and Ariel Durant published a series of volumes that together were known as “The Story of Civilization.” They basically told human history (mostly Western history) as an accumulation of great ideas and innovations, from the Egyptians, through Athens, Magna Carta, the Age of Faith, the Renaissance and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The series was phenomenally successful, selling over two million copies.

That series encapsulated the Western civilization narrative that people, at least in Europe and North America, used for most of the past few centuries to explain their place in the world and in time. This narrative was confidently progressive. There were certain great figures, like Socrates, Erasmus, Montesquieu and Rousseau, who helped fitfully propel the nations to higher reaches of the humanistic ideal.”

It was a humanistic ideal in the sense it replaced Protestantism which replaced other forms of Religion as the dominant force of the West. But while there is a new dominant force, it uses the tactics of its ancestors to control the masses, as the saying goes “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

“This Western civ narrative came with certain values — about the importance of reasoned discourse, the importance of property rights, the need for a public square that was religiously informed but not theoretically dominated. It set a standard for what great statesmanship looked like. It gave diverse people a sense of shared mission and a common vocabulary, set a framework within which political argument could happen and most important provided a set of common goals.”

Yes, there were “certain values” that the West was built on, but they were (and still are) forced upon individuals who weren’t taught anything else than to behave and accept it. Also, I love how he says there was a “…need for a public square that was religiously informed but not theoretically dominated” because that is the main problem behind Liberalism and/or Humanism. They hold onto morality of their ancestors because it’s wholly dependent on religious dogma in hopes to keep “order” to prevent “chaos.” While Humanists/Liberals mock the religious man for believing in a sky fairy, they place the “moral man” into a higher ideal that cannot be questioned or otherwise the whole structure of society will “collapse” according to them. Well, people have criticized the values of modern-day society but has not collapsed as a result of that.

“Starting decades ago, many people, especially in the universities, lost faith in the Western civilization narrative. They stopped teaching it, and the great cultural transmission belt broke. Now many students, if they encounter it, are taught that Western civilization is a history of oppression

It’s amazing what far-reaching effects this has had. It is as if a prevailing wind, which powered all the ships at sea, had suddenly ceased to blow. Now various scattered enemies of those Western values have emerged, and there is apparently nobody to defend them.”

People have started to lose faith in Liberalism because of many things. For starters, Liberalism cant prevents authoritarians but instead provide a condition in which causes authoritarians to rise in the political atmosphere(whether it may have been from the Extreme Left and Extreme Right). Education in some way, plays a role in building behaviours like that, causing the concept of “the authoritarian personality” to take shape in societies that were deemed impossible.  People like Max Stirner has seen this kind of behaviour take shape in Germany during the 19th century by saying “And it’s not precisely the liberals again that press for good education and improvement of the educational system?For how could their liberalism, their “liberty within the bounds of the law,” come about with discipline? Even if they do not exactly educate to the fear of God, yet they demand the fear of Man all the more strictly and awaken “enthusiasm” for the truly human calling” by discipline.” (1)

“The first consequence has been the rise of the illiberals, authoritarians who not only don’t believe in the democratic values of the Western civilization narrative, but don’t even pretend to believe in them, as former dictators did.

Over the past few years especially, we have entered the age of strong men. We are leaving the age of Obama, Cameron and Merkel and entering the age of Putin, Erdogan, el-Sisi, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump

The events last week in Turkey were just another part of the trend. Recep Tayyip Erdogan dismantles democratic institutions and replaces them with majoritarian dictatorship. Turkey seems to have lost its desire to join the European idea, which no longer has magnetism and allure. Turkey seems to have lost its aspiration to join the community of democracies because that’s no longer the inevitable future.

More and more governments, including the Trump administration, begin to look like premodern mafia states, run by family-based commercial clans. Meanwhile, institutionalized, party-based authoritarian regimes, like in China or Russia, are turning into premodern cults of personality/Maximum Leader regimes, which are far more unstable and dangerous.

Then there has been the collapse of the center. For decades, center-left and center-right parties clustered around similar versions of democratic capitalism that Western civilization seemed to point to. But many of those centrist parties, like the British and Dutch Labour Parties, are in near collapse. Fringe parties rise.

n France, the hard-right Marine Le Pen and the hard-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon could be the final two candidates in the presidential runoff. Le Pen has antiliberal views about national purity. Mélenchon is a supposedly democratic politician who models himself on Hugo Chávez.”

Obama, Cameron and Merkel are just as much at fault as Putin, Erdogan, el-sisi,  Kim-Jong-Un, and Donald Trump, it just depends on the level of responsibility. In my opinion, its due to interventionist policies in the middle east with a mixture of Islamist terrorist attacks across the world. The people who are affected by this perpetual conflict are the refugees and the citizens of countries and the situation is got getting any better as secular dictators are being replaced with Islamic Theocracies. Also, the reason why these governments are looking to the past for answers is that the present conditions aren’t working. This is the internal contradiction with modernity, it destroys systems that it deems “irrational” or “violating human rights” but cant provides any other conclusions. Therefore, it isolates a majority of people who either succumb to nihilism or revert back to tradition, seeing it as “working” before and overemphasizing that to succeed in the modern world. I am not saying Traditionalism works in general, I am just saying that is how the minds of the Alt-Right tend to think.(2)(3)

“If those two end up in the finals, then the European Union and NATO, the two great liberal institutions of modern Europe, will go into immediate crisis.”

Yes two “great liberal institutions” that were responsible for replacing secular dictators for unstable Islamic Theocracy’s and supporting those countries to take part of NATO.(4)(5)

“Finally, there has been the collapse of liberal values at home. On American campuses, fragile thugs who call themselves students shout down and abuse speakers on a weekly basis. To read Heather MacDonald’s account of being pilloried at Claremont McKenna College is to enter a world of chilling intolerance.

In America, the basic fabric of civic self-government seems to be eroding following the loss of faith in democratic ideals. According to a study published in The Journal of Democracy, the share of young Americans who say it is absolutely important to live in a democratic country has dropped from 91 percent in the 1930s to 57 percent today.

While running for office, Donald Trump violated every norm of statesmanship built up over these many centuries, and it turned out many people didn’t notice or didn’t care.

The faith in the West collapsed from within. It’s amazing how slow people have been to rise to defend it.”

Like I have said before, its due to a build-up of the authoritarian personality through a system that people have lost hope from.(6) The reason people are abandoning it is that people have started to realize that western civilization (like all other civilizations)are bound to collapse, it’s only a matter of time and what its going to be replaced with is my concern.

“There have been a few lonely voices. Andrew Michta laments the loss of Western confidence in an essay in The American Interest. Edward Luce offers a response in his forthcoming book “The Retreat of Western Liberalism.” But liberalism has been docile in defense of itself.

These days, the whole idea of Western civ is assumed to be reactionary and oppressive. All I can say is, if you think that was reactionary and oppressive, wait until you get a load of the world that comes after it.”

Some people are realists, unlike Mr. Brooks because I realize that “my rights” are nothing but “privileges” that are granted by the State. Its only a matter of time before the next socialist or fascist country comes in to commit inhospitable crimes because history keeps repeating itself.

Link to the opinion piece:


  1. Max Stirner, “The Ego and Its Own” (1844)
  2. & 3.Max Horkheimer & Theodor Adorno; “The Dialectic of Enlightenment”
  3. Ibid, “The Ego and Its Own” The Moderns, Section 2:The Hierarchy
  4. Theodor Adorno, “The Authoritarian Personality”

Time-stamps for Sargon of Akkad’s interview with Jordan B. Peterson







On April 10, 2017, a YouTube content creator by the name of Sargon of Akkad interviews a guy by the name of Jordan B. Peterson. Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist and tenured professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. The point of these Time stamps is to provide some information about Jordan Peterson’s thoughts and let anyone  come to their own conclusions on his reasoning. These time-stamps are not quotes, but rather they explain what Jordan Peterson is saying throughout the video itself. If I get any of these time-stamps wrong, please send me a message on here, contact me through twitter “@worthy248” and/or email me at “” so I can correct some mistakes.


With that being said here is the time-stamps


0:13 Peterson runs a clinical practice

0:40 Peterson says he has been on YouTube since 2013, his videos are for the most part his lectur


1:04 Peterson says some of his lectures are based off his book “Maps of Meaning”

1:55 Peterson says that he made a Patreon account after he found out how to use YouTube’ Algorithm or bandwidth . He was curious about it because of its appeal to creative people and monetization.

2:21 Peterson says he works for a company called “The Founder Institute” and its located in the state of California. His role in the company is to bring people into that Institute who he deems to have “creativity” and an “entrepreneurial spirit”

2:43 Peterson says he set up his Patreon account in May of 2016

3:05 Peterson says he has posted over 300 lectures online by April 2016

3:17 Peterson says he has been on “The Agenda” with Steve Paikin multiple times

3:40 Peterson says he is writing a book that is suppose to be published by 2018 called “12 Rules of Life: The Anecdote to Chaos. ” In that book he mentions a Chapter called “Dont bother children while they are skateboarding”  where he talks about how many people are living under a Politically Correct, Anti-Male Culture.

4:07 Peterson says he has been paying attention to political correctness since 1993.

4:38 Peterson says that his clinical clients were bullied by Social Justice Warrior  types

5:00 Peterson says there are bills being made in which people a forced to use gender pronouns. These pronouns he claims, were created by the Radical Left

5:50 Peterson says he made two videos about the gender identity laws in Canada. The second video was about the University of Toronto using bias tests on their staff.

7:18 Peterson says the bias test is not even liked among the creators of the test. One person doesn’t like how its being used, while the other one who likes it is “Marxist-oriented” but even the second person knows its not accurate.

8:20 Peterson says people are forced into re-education seminars that state they are racist in the university of Toronto

8:40 Peterson says he has gotten two letters of warning from the university from discussing the gender identity bills. Later on,  he states there was spelling errors on the first letter, whilst on the second letter he claims there was a agenda being made against him.

8:58 Peterson says there was two protests as a result of his videos on gender pronouns. The first protest consisted of 40 people who were professional activists. The second protest was a counter protest organize by a student from Hong Kong.

9:09 Peterson says the University of Toronto is a predominately conservative campus.

9:27 Peterson says Women studies and Sociology are corrupt and that is why “Professional Activism” exists

10:10 Peterson says protesters attacked Lauren Southern (an ex-reporter of Rebel Media) and they were causing trouble for the counter protesters.

11:48 Peterson says the university contacted him about his gender pronoun and said it might be illegal to post that

17:17 Peterson says he thinks the Radical Left are like children in Kindergarten, they always want to be awarded with something

17:48 Peterson thinks that the Radical Left only cares about material riches without taken into effect the responsibility that the Rich have to go through.

20:47 Peterson says greed is what causes businesses to hire the most competent employees. (In other words, Greed is a virtue)

21:15 Peterson says wages for the working class had been flat since 1975. Peterson says its flat due to many women in the workforce working for cheap wages (In other words, they are suppressing wages)

24:15 Peterson says women will work for less money

25:40 Peterson says as IQ scores for women increase, the less likely they are to get married.

32:20 Peterson says gender is technically a social construct but its based of biological fact.

33:10 Peterson says (comparing this to gender) there is only two types of movies: Romance and Adventure

33:45 Peterson says the purpose of Romance is not lifetime happiness, but to set up a family in order to make children

34:30 Peterson says Romance is used as a survival tool through cooperation

35:00 Peterson says you need companions in order to keep your sanity in check.

35:35 Peterson says women who are told “you’re going to have a career” are being lied to. Only a few women have a career, but most of them have a job.

38:00 Peterson says 19 year olds dont know anything because they didn’t know anything seven years ago

37:54 Peterson says the most important thing in your life is your family, your relationships and your children

38:10 Peterson says by the age of 40 if you aren’t married, then you are a lost soul

39:18 Peterson says if you are not situated with some sort of family in the later stages in your life, then you are a sad, lonely, creature.

41:50 Peterson doesn’t believe women who are cynical about having children should not have the right to speak about their opinions on families.

52:00-:50 Despite pointing out that there is masculine woman and feminine men, Peterson still believes gender roles are important.

54:05 Peterson says gender identity in regards to male and female are needed as a tool to survive the world. It has to be something it can be responded to.

1:02:20-:40 Peterson says that Marxists and Post-modernists have infiltrated universities

1:02:50 Peterson’s solution to “Marxist” infiltration’s in academia is to defund most of the academic disciplines.

1:05:10 Peterson says most people dont know (in the west) that millions of people were killed under Stalin and Mao. Even if they did, Peterson said people would discard that fact

1:05:30 Peterson says the academia has been dominated by the Radical Left for over 60 years

1:05:40 Peterson says that people like Jacques Derrida and John Paul Sartre are Neo-Marxists because they never called out the crimes committed by Stalin or Mao

1:05:50 Peterson says Postmodernism exists because they couldn’t work with Marxism anymore

1:06:10 Peterson complains about a soviet flag  he saw while speaking at McGill University. Further on, he said what if there was a nazi flag in there, it would be an outrage

1:06:40 Peterson thinks society is socially acceptable to “Bolshevik propaganda” but not nazi propaganda

1:06:50 Peterson says that academia has been taken over by the Left ever since the 1960’s.

1:07: 25 Peterson says that 1 out of 5 social scientists come out as Marxists.

1:09:00 Peterson says people who use the “equity doctrine” need to be stopped.

1:10:40 Peterson says he opposes the “equity doctrine” because its impossible

1:13:30 Peterson says the individual is the most important because the individual has many different qualities from each person

1:14:30 Peterson agrees with postmodernists on there being many interpretations to canonical domains.

1:15:07 Peterson says post-modernism went off the track when they couldn’t accept the facts of reality

1:17:30 Peterson compares dissonance in extreme ideologies to the snake in the Garden of Eden

1:18:10 Peterson goes on to say that people are handlers of snakes because they have snakes in their hearts. He compares the garden of Eden snake to Moses’s snake that turned into a rod.

1:23:00 Peterson says humility is a pathway to strength

1:38:30 Peterson says the reason to study history is because you are studying “who you are.”

1:41:40 Peterson says that you have to take responsibility of all mankind and understand it by accepting its flaws

1:46:20 Peterson recognizes that admitting you’re a “monster” can have unintended consequences on some people. Nevertheless, he advises it should work out most of the time.

1:50:10 Peterson thinks conservatives can teach younger people responsibility.

1:50:54 Peterson says that the patriarchy can be oppressive social system (like every other system) but it  also provide resources like electricity and hot water.

1:52:00 Peterson says Feminists need to give more gratitude to Masculinity and men in general.



Source of the TimeStamps:



Me, Myself and I



There is something that has been bothering me for a long time, its a thing that I cant avoid any longer. I have tried to ignore it in the hopes of moving on in my life, but the more I resist it, the less I can ignore it anymore. This thing that I have come to accept in my life is “Myself.” Its the mind, the wandering spirit that loves me for who I am by protecting me from all the fixed ideas that many people are being influenced by. It is also the type of spirit that keeps me going in this world, from enjoying a walk in nature to being accompanied by fellow travellers of my time. With inspiration and creativity brings jealously from the spooks and they attempt to destroy their true desires by constantly self-deluding themselves to another “cause.” But as I watch their torment, I began to the realize its a problem with mankind itself, as Max Stirner says in “The Ego and Its Own.”

 If there is even one truth only to which man has to devote his life and his powers because he is man, then he is subjected to a rule, dominion, law; he is a servingman. It is supposed that man, humanity, liberty, etc., are such truths.

Mankind and Humanism have attempted to get rid of Religion through morality, but the result is their morality brings them as much happiness and joy as the Bible-Believing Christian being forced to love Christ Jesus or suffer the consequences. I feel empathy for the non-egoist but only so far as realizing their faults. Other than that, the possessiveness of these people has brought only the individual into submission and as a result “Some things change while others remain the same.” An Egoist like myself will continue to fight on this nonsense whilst enjoying “the fruits of his own labour.” Hell, Maybe I could give a Union of Egoists a try.


freedom-cannot-be-granted-52650-13563.jpgAs you can see from the title, this is a response to an article posted by a guy named “ Alexander Reid Ross” which is a member of a website called Now, before I respond to this,  I want  to give first the context of this article and then a disclaimer in order to make aware the readers (and Alexander himself) that I am not in any way trying to deceive anyone.  I first heard about him through a facebook group that posted one of his linked articles titled  “THE LEFT-OVERS: HOW FASCISTS COURT THE POST-LEFT.”(1). In that article, he mentions Max Stirner, Friedrich Nietzsche and Post-Left in which he claims that some of their writings contributed to either sympathizing to Fascists or downright supporting them. I couldn’t really care much about the Post-Left stuff considering that I don’t identify as a “Post-Leftists,” but I sure as hell don’t identify with the Right Wing either. I was focused more on Stirner and Nietzsche and the ways in which I disagreed with many of his propositions. Anyways, Facebook  groups on Egoism started to post this article and the comments on the article were mostly negative. As a result, Dr. Bones From “The Conjure House” posted a response titled “Post-Left vs “Woke” Left: How Alexander R. Ross Got Max Stirner Wrong” (2) and sent it to Alexander. What happened between them after that I have no idea but as a result of said criticism from many people, Alexander made this article that I am responding to.

Disclaimer: The opinions that I express in this response is merely my own and not anyone else.  I am not affiliated with any organization or group other than Facebook groups on egoism. If anyone shares this article, that doesn’t mean the person or group in question agrees with everything I have to say.

With all that out of the way let’s get to my response.

The first part of this article deals with talking about the Post-Left and people like John Zerzan. As mentioned earlier, I have no interest in Post-left because I don’t identify myself as that. Eventually, he mentions Stirner and talks about Dr. Bones’s criticism on it

Bones accuses me of never having read Stirner or Nietzsche, although I have read virtually all of Stirner and Nietzsche. The sensitivity is incredible, given that I devote only one sentence to Max Stirner in “The Left-Overs,” writing that he held a “belief in the supremacy of the European individual over and against nation, class, and creed.” For this, I have been subjected to some of the most intense invective I have ever experienced in my life. Bones calls me a “fucking asshole” in his piece and a leftist “class struggle” meme page attacks me as a liberal antifa cuck, deploying the racist vocabulary of the alt-right to denounce antifascism as if they were not proving my point.”

I have no control over what Dr. Bones said but his quote that Stirner believed “… in the supremacy of the European individual over and against nation, class, and creed.” is a bit nonsensical. The reason being is because Alexander is trying to paint Stirner as supporting White Nationalism by stating “European.” This is the same dog whistling that comes from the Alt-Right where Richard Spencer claims that “America is a European Country.” The only difference is that you’re against White Supremacy whilst The Alt Right supports it. More on this soon

“Bones does not deny the Eurocentrism of Stirner’s insistence on a “really Caucasian” age following the purging of “innate Negroidity” and “Mongloidity.”[6] Yet he refuses to acknowledge the tacit racism, despite the fact that Stirner’s editor and translator, David Leopold, wrote in his introduction to Cambridge University Press’s 1995 edition of The Ego and Its Own, “Individual and historical development are the two primary forms of the Stirnerian dialectic, but in order to clarify its form he inserts ‘episodically’ a racial (and racist) analogue of the historical account.”[7] Those calling my interpretation of Stirner “dishonest,” “disingenuous,” and “dirty” must hurl the same invective at Dr. Leopold, an Oxford University fellow and professor entrusted with the leading edition of Stirner’s main text (available through Libcom).”

Two things, the first being that Alexander calling Stirner a “Eurocentric” is a bit of an irrelevant, considering you could apply that logic to many people of his time including Bakunin, Marx, Proudhon, Kropotkin and many more. Secondly, it seems like you taken that quote from David Leopold and left out all the other stuff he said about Stirner’s explanation. So here is the quote in full detail

Individual and historical development are the two primary forms of the Stirnerian dialectic, but in order to clarify its form, he inserts ‘episodically’ a racial (and racist) analog of the historical account. Human history, in this new narrative, ‘whose shaping properly belongs altogether to the Caucasian race’, is divided into three ‘Caucasian ages’. The first, in which the Caucasian race works off its ‘innate Negroid’, is vaguely located as including the era of Egyptian and North African importance in general and the campaigns of Sesostris III in particular, but its importance is clearly symbolic. xvii Introduction ‘Negroidity’ is the racial parallel of antiquity and childhood, representing a time of dependence on things: ‘on cock’s eating, bird’s flight, on sneezing, on thunder and lightning, on the rustling of sacred trees and so forth’ (p. 63). The second epoch, in which the Caucasian race escapes its ‘Mongoidity (Chineseness)” includes ‘the invasions of the Huns and Mongols up to the Russians ‘, and parallels the modern age and youth in representing the time of dependence on thoughts. Stimer’s concern with the continuity of this Christian epoch is emphasized by his choice of ‘Mongolism’ as the parallel of the modern, ‘Chineseness’ being a standard and pejorative Hegelian shorthand for lack of qualitative change . ‘Reserved for the future’ is the ‘really Caucasian’ era in which, having thrown off the Negroid and Mongol inheritance, the egoistic self can escape its dependence on both natural forces and ideas.(3) “

Stirner is talking about how historical developments are being shaped through a European lens and explains how each “caucasian age” brings it closer for Egoism to take shape all across the world. Was there a racial element in this? Yes, because of Stirner, like many others, lived in an era where racism was predominant in society. It is through this that causes ignorance of the terms because of Stirner’s isolation and incorrect usage of language. As David Leopold says later on in the Cambridge Edition of  “The Ego and its Own.”

“From 1847, Stirner’s life was characterized by social isolation and financial precariousness. He remained curiously detached from contemporary events – he seems, for example, to have largely ignored the revolution of 1848 – and his daily life was increasingly dominated by domestic routine and economic hardship. Stirner continued to write intermittently, but commentators have generally found his later work to be of little independent interest.”(4)

Can we chalk this up to blind ignorance, friends? Stirner’s historical account runs parallel to the then-popular Aryan myth, wherein the passage of humans from Africa to Asia to Europe signifies a cultural-linguistic process of evolution. Bones posits Stirner’s rejection of nationalism as a defense against the charge that he was racist. Yet recall now that I mentioned that Stirner held a “belief in the supremacy of the European individual over and against nation, class, and creed.” Race and nation are different subjects, and looking at the complex history of ideological cross-overs, we can see fascinating outcroppings of the work of Stirner and Nietzsche that reject modern nationalism while reinforcing racist imperialism. The inability to detect this exposes a crucial vulnerability to racist anti-statism, which we will come to shortly.”

Stirner’s thoughts are not part of an Aryan Myth, if Alexander can provide a source that proves it, that would be great. As for the concept of Race and Nation, it can be differentiated but in the context of today’s political environment, Ethno-Nationalism is on the rise and it’s currently growing while forms of Civic-Nationalism and National Liberation Fronts are in the decline.  Hence Mr. Bones reaction on Nationalism to counter Stirner’s racial elements.

In the 1860s, Stirner would become a topic for historians and philosophers of the mind, from Friedrich Lange’s History of Materialism to Hartmann’s Philosophy of the Unconscious. There is little doubt that perhaps the most influential thinker of nihilism, Friedrich Nietzsche, was familiar with Stirner, familiar as he was with those two influential texts. He lent his student, Adolf Baumgartner, a copy of Ego and Its Own in 1874.[8] Less than ten years later, shortly before publication of his most essential work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche confessed to his friend Ida Overbeck the deep influence of Stirner on his thinking before worrying, “they will be talking of plagiarism.”[9]

The sources that Alexander provides debunk his own claim about Stirner’s influence on Nietzsche. Let’s start with the lending of Stirner’s book to Nietzsche.

It is nevertheless certain that Nietzsche recommended the reading of Stirner to one of his students in Basle. In consulting the register of the Basle library it’s true that we don’t find Stirner’s book in the list of books borrowed in Nietzsche’s name. But we see that the book was borrowed three times between 1870 – 1880. In 1872 by the privat-dozent Schwarzkopf (Syrus Archimedes), in 1874 by the student Baumgartner, and in 1879 by professor Hans Heussler. M. Baumgartner though, son of Mme Baumgartner-Kochlin, who translated the “Untimely Meditations” into French, was Nietzsche’s favorite student: in his correspondence, the philosopher calls him his “erzschuler.” M. Baumgartner, who is today professor at the University of Basle, says that it was on Nietzsche’s advice that he read Stirner, but he his certain that he never loaned the book to his teacher.” (5)

So the only person who knows about this is a professor who states Nietzsche advised one of his students to read Stirner. That is extremely vague and provides no other proof than hearsay. It reminds me of people who swear they thought Nelson Mandela died in the 1980’s and now its a whole conspiracy theory called “The Mandela Effect.” Once I read this whole paper, it became clear to me that Alexander did not read all of this because of these quotes in general.

We don’t encounter Stirner’s name either in the works or correspondence of Nietzsche. Mme. Forster-Nietzsche, in the meticulous biography she dedicated to her brother, doesn’t speak of the author of “The Ego and Its Own.” In any event, the work was almost completely forgotten up until the time J.H. Mackay set out to celebrate it. J.H. Mackay himself tells us that he only read Stirner’s name and the title of his book for the first time in 1888: this is the very year that Nietzsche descended into madness. In 1888 Mackay found Stirner’s name in Lange’s “History of Materialism,” which he read at the British Museum in London. A year then passed before he again encountered this name, which he had carefully noted. Until that date, Stirner was thus truly dead: he is indebted to Mackay for his resurrection.”

“Nietzsche opposes the enthusiasm of youth to this egoist maturity. It would be quite surprising if Nietzsche, who didn’t take Hartmann’s “parody” seriously, would have decided at that date to study the works of Stirner, where he would have found theories even more paradoxical in his eyes than those of “Philosophy of the Unconscious.” In any event, Hartmann’s argument doesn’t prove that Stirner directly influenced Nietzsche.”

“In summary, it doesn’t appear that Stirner had a decisive influence on Nietzsche. He perhaps contributed to keeping Nietzsche for a time within the realm of Schopenhauer’s metaphysics. He was doubtless little by little forgotten afterward.”(5.)

What this means is Stirner’s influence on Nietzsche was slim if not really anything.  Next, he referenced a book called  “Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography by Rüdiger Safranski in which Nietzsche supposedly stated “they will be talking about plagiarism” in regards to Stirner’s work. I looked through the whole book and I cannot find that quote anywhere(6). So from what I’ve gathered, I think it’s safe to say that there is hardly any direct connection between Stirner and Nietzsche’s work.

Like Stirner, Nietzsche asserted the philosophical importance of iconoclasm—of destroying dominant paradigms that contain the individual. Nietzsche looked at the spirit of his day—the decadence of urban expansion, mundane philosophy, the herds of nationalism and flocks of the Church—as a form of passive nihilism. To overcome it, he predicted a new Superman would come about to annihilate the falsity of everyday life through an “active nihilism” perhaps evocative of an “eternal return” of human freedom.[10]

Anarchist writer George Woodcock notes, “Nietzsche himself regarded Stirner as one of the unrecognized seminal minds of the nineteenth century.”[11] By the end of the 20th Century, Nietzsche and Stirner formed fundamental pillars of radical thought. Writer and editor, Benjamin Tucker, discussed the significance of Stirner to anarchism, while Emma Goldman popularized Nietzsche.[12]”

Just because one anarchist says there is a Stirner-Nietzsche connection, it doesn’t mean that it is true. There has to be a thing called “evidence” and that needs to be expressed and so far, there isn’t anything to go off on.  Also, the fact that there’s a crossover for anyone who reads Stirner to use it to their advantage, regardless of their cause, (even if its fascism) is a useless point unless you are painting a narrative against Max Stirner itself. People need to realize that Stirner can be used by anyone and anywhere since he was apolitical and didn’t have any dreams for a better future. Is it terrible that people do this? Yes, but that is how the nature of ideology works, its there to manipulate the masses into their subjective preference of reality.

“Aside from these influences, Stirner and Nietzsche also had a tremendous effect on Dora Marsden, a feminist leader who held the Aryan female genius responsible for breeding humanity into the New Order.[13] Aside from being a Stirnerist, Marsden was also influenced by the anti-Semitic and misogynistic individualist, Otto Weininger, who counted Stirner, with Ibsen and Nietzsche, as the only scholars to ever understand true ethics and individualism.[14]Though she was an egoist and an important member of the women’s movement, her agreement with Weininger led her to essentialize the sex binary in her writings. Weininger would also influence the Nazi regime and Evola openly admired him.[15]

By this logic, why should I even pay attention to anarchism considering the fact that the figureheads were deeply Anti-semitic themselves?

Bakunin on Marx and Rothschild“Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild. This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ….”(7)

Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1847), On the Jews

“December 26, 1847: Jews. Write an article against this race that poisons everything by sticking its nose into everything without ever mixing with any other people. Demand its expulsion from France with the exception of those individuals married to French women. Abolish synagogues and not admit them to any employment. Finally, pursue the abolition of this religion. It’s not without cause that the Christians called them to decide. The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated. By steel or by fire or by expulsion the Jew must disappear.”(8.)

The list can go on through a number of people who were Anti-Semitic at that time. What I’m not going to do, however, is simply dismiss their arguments because of what they’ve said because it’s an Ad-hominem attack and a Guilt by Association fallacy and just pretend that is real criticism. As for that Evola quote, here is the entire quote in detail.

“The previous phase, limited ίη its extent, had been that οί the Romantic hero: the man who feels alone ίη the face of divine indifference and the superior individual who despite everything reaffirms himself ίη a tragic context. He breaks accepted laws, but not ίη the sense of denying their validity; rather, he claims for himself exceptional rights to what is forbidden, be it good or ίΙl. The process exhausts itself, for example, ίη a man like Max Stirner, who saw ίη all morality the ultimate form οί the divine fetish that was to be destroyed. He denounced the “beyond” that exists within man and that tries to give him rules as being a “new heaven” that is merely the insidious transposition οί the external, theological beyond, which has been negated. With this conquest of the “interior god” and the exaltation of the “Unique” that is free from rules and “rests its cause οη nothingness,” opposing itself to every value and pretense οί society, Stirner marks the end of the road trodden by the nihilistic social revolutionaries (to whom the term nihilism was originally applied)-but trodden ίη the name of utopian social ideas ίη which they always believed: ideas such as “justice,” “liberty,” and “humanity,” as opposed to the injustice and tyranny that they saw ίη the existing order. “(9)

What Evola is describing was Stirner’s Philosophy in his own opinion. Instead of embracing it, he simply rejected it because it was based on “nothingness” and “nihilistic”. As for Nietzsche, he cherry-picked the things he likes and disregards what he dislikes. This is just another example of how people subvert other peoples works for their own political agenda.

Alexander then names other authors that I have no clue as to who they were. But it doesn’t really matter because like I’ve said before, crossovers happen all over the political and ideological spectrum and it’s really pointless to point that out. The reason is that it can be applied to both Left as well as Right-wing politics. He then goes on to say that he did not accuse Stirner of being Left or Right. If that were true, then why even make the case that the rise of fascism on the internet is due mostly to Stirner and Nietzsche? Alexander might respond with “fascism takes elements of both the left and right” but yet once again it’s irrelevant because everyone takes elements of left and right that they like and don’t like. I am sorry that you don’t have a “sacred” and “pure” concept of Anarchism, it’s just that people have many different interpretations as to how the world works.

Later on, he mentions how Mussolini recommended his Blackshirts to read Stirner and Rothbard influencing the Left. The source of Mussolini’s recommendation cannot be found other than buying two books(which I don’t have the money for). As for Rothbard, he tried to form political alliances on both sides in order to think about his version of Libertarianism, “ Rothbard formed strategic alliances with widely different groups throughout his career. Perhaps the most intriguing of these alliances is the one Rothbard formed with the New Left in the mid- 1960s, especially considering their antithetical economic views. “(10). It was stupid and so is the libertarian movement in general because they don’t understand how realpolitik works.

Edit: So I found out more information regarding Stirner’s influence on Mussolini. As it turns out, Alexander is being dishonest by not pointing out the context of his thoughts on Stirner. To quote S.E. Parker, he states this when mentioning “Roots of the Right Edition of the Ego and Its Own.”

“Mr. Carroll’s case is a poor one. He gives no clearly delineated causal connection between Stirner’s conscious egoism and the altruism of fascism. He can only suggest, for example, that Stirner’s ideas had a direct influence on Mussolini and perhaps an indirect influence on Hitler. Since he admits that Hitler was probably ignorant of Stirner his conjectures about are too tenuous to consider.
Mussolini is a different matter. He wrote enthusiastically “why shouldn’t Stirner become significant again” and praised individualism as late as 1919. But, as Mr. Carroll says, his “notorious exhibitionism” made him less a passionate follower of ideas than an intellectual opportunist, freely swapping them to suit the cause of the moment.

True to form, once he was in authority, Mussolini dropped his sympathy for individualism like a hot potato. At the Fascist Party Congress of 1929 he declared that the individual only existed as part of the State and subordinate to its necessities [those darn egoists are slippery types, to be sure—ed.] And in his The Political and Social Doctrines of Fascism he wrote: “The foundation of Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State…” It would take a medieval school-man or a Marxist theoretician to find any trace of Stirner in such statements as these.”(11)


Furthermore, I am just gonna respond to these last two quotes and wrap up with my overall thoughts

Looking up Stirner in the fascist blogosphere today, one finds the most important cross-overs. In the Counter-Currents article, “We Are All Egoists—and Why That’s a Good Thing,” by former anarchist “race realist,” Aedon Cassiel, Stirner’s egoism avoids the “immature, anti-social, or sociopathic” approach, moving instead toward a synthesis of individualism and collectivism that provides for “a flourishing social commons.” This, of course, is not to say that a reading of The Ego and Its Own that permits such a synthetic social relationship of individuals is automatically fascist, but rather that it has significant weight across the spectrum.”

“With the development of the alt-right, newer syntheses of Stirnerism became possible. Stirner soon became a topic of interest, a conversation piece between Stirner-influenced nationalist Jonathan Bowden and alt-right founder, Richard Spencer. Alt-right accounts like “Darth Stirner” emerged, encouraging young radicals to abandon “rose-colored glasses” and open their eyes to the need for interning the enemies of the white race.[46]

Aedon Cassiel was talking about Ayn Rand’s form of Egoism and as soon as he mentioned  Stirner, he simply dismissed his arguments simply because he believed that “we are already living in an egoistic world.” To pay attention to Stirner and ignore Rand’s role in that article is dishonest and disingenuous. As for Richard Spencer’s Conversation with Jonathan Bowden, Stirner was only in interest for a second and then simply dismissed by Bowden as childish as we can see here

RS: Right. Did you go through this phase?

JB: Not really. I’ve always been a bit too cynical for that, really. Although, anarchism as an idea, through people like Max Stirner to one side of Nietzsche, did interest me when I was very young. So, I had a look at those sort of utopian currents, and that’s a creed that’s to the Left of almost everything else. And you can reach that through extreme forms of individualism. So, I had a look at that, partly to get hold of Stirner’s book, which you could only get from anarchist outlets at that time. There’s a Cambridge University Press edition of The Ego and Its Own now, but there wasn’t when I was young.”

But no, I’ve never had those views in that way, because I’ve always regarded them as adolescent views, essentially, as views which are not tempered by the rigor of age and maturity and are immature attitudes towards life.”(12)

As for using a name of a guy’s account to prove that Stirner is gaining traction on the Right is one of the most utterly repulsive things I have seen. This has to be one of the worst forms of desperation I have ever seen used against Stirner and there will definitely be worse attacks on his character as this political climate turns for the worse.


The rest of this article is full of crossovers and word salads in order to convince people that Stirner is influencing many people on the Right. What Alexander needs to understand is that not everything is simple as he thinks it is. Stirner’s Egoism has always been under attack by both the Left and the Right and it will always be taken out of context in order to achieve an agenda. This, in turn, creates fear in engaging with ideas that are in disagreement and eventually people lose all sense of discourse. The whole point of my response was not to convince others to join Egoism but to show how an ideologue can propagate falsehoods for political expediency whether it be Antifa or The Alt-Right. Now if you’ll excuse me, I gotta debunk this “Cultural Marxism” nonsense that white nationalists are making a fuss about.








(7) Michael Bakunin, 1871, Personliche Beziehungen zu Marx. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 3. Berlin 1924. P. 204-216. [My translation – UD].


(9) Julius Evola, Ride Against the Tiger, Chapter 7: The Unique One, Retrieved From

(10) John Payne, “Rothbard’s Time on the Left,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 19, no.1 (Winter 2005): pg.1

(11) Anarchism, Angst, and Max Stirner by S.E.Parker:

(12) Johnathan Bowden an Interview by Richard Spencer

What is Egoism?




When people go on the internet, they are usually there to find information unavailable to them in print or books. Eventually, someone comes across the word Egoism and starts to wonder “what does this even mean?” While some are able to answer the question, others are still confused as the whole purpose of egoism itself due to the very nature itself. With that in mind, I feel the need to express my own opinion on this subject in the hope that my explanation will be perfectly clear. So to begin, let me quote Johann Kaspar Schmidt, most notably known as Max Stirner.

“I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique one, the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born”(pg.366)

Egoism, in accordance with myself, is the self-ownership of my own mind. It has come to my knowledge that “My Own Essence” and creativity is the only thing that is visible to the world in which people interact. Anything else is a False Pretense that is built on illusions that which being The State, Religion, Morality, and Society. What this means is I am not bound by these “sacred” principles that torment individuals day and night on the “right way” to act. When individuals are bounded by rules and regulations, this, in turn, creates a life full of non-identity and perpetual fear that forces the voice of egoism to be squashed.

“People is the name of the body, State of the spirit, of that ruling person that has hitherto suppressed me.” (pg.242)

Another point to be made is Egoism is not just a tool for someone “cause” but rather a way of life. I keep hold of what is Mine because the person who possesses that object is Me. Egoism is both a means and the end, it is materials and the final product on the mental shelf of my Uniqueness.  This doesn’t mean empathy is out of the question but rather forced empathy, otherwise known as Altruism. In many ways, I’ve seen fellow egoists online trying to mix an egoistic lifestyle within a communistic framework. I would not in any force them to my own beliefs, but if I am asked on my own thoughts on this, I would say they are prey to being possessed by the same ghosts that many people struggle with as I write this down.

“He who refuses to spend his powers for such limited societies as family, party, nation, is still always longing for a worthier society, and thinks he has found the true object of love, perhaps in “human society” or “mankind” to sacrifice himself to which constitutes his honor; from now on he “lives for and serves mankind.” (pg.242)


To conclude, Nation causes death, morality causes manipulation, Family brings distrust, Religion causes torture, The State causes suppression and Society causes all of these problems to happen at once. Instead of fulfilling your life onto others, why not fulfil your life to yourself? Just do what you want to do and serve yourself because the only person that truly cares about your well-being is yourself. “Do what Thou wilt” and once that happens, Egoism will be ready to embrace You like a lover embraces their companion through pleasure.

Source: The Ego and Its Own by Max Stirner (1844) (Dover Edition)