Tag Archives: Antisocial Individualities for the fall of civilization

(en) Two Who Made an Insurrection: Stirner, Nietzsche, and the Revolt against Modernity

Algo de historia filosófica sobre los dos egoistas hostiles a la modernidad y el apestoso humanismo. 


MAX STIRNER AND FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE

Stirner remains a marginal figure in contemporary philosophy and social thought, despite his significant influence on theorists such as Benjamin Tucker, James L. Walker, Dora Marsden, and the writers and activists associated with Liberty and The Egoist. As far as contemporary scholarship is concerned, the work of Saul Newman and Bernd Laska are scholarly efforts to establish Stirner’s relevance to contemporary thought and the critique of modernity. Newman appreciates Stirner as a precursor of the development of “poststructuralist anarchism” and the “politics of postanarchism.” Newman believes that Stirner is a forerunner to postmodernist and postructuralist thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and Jacques Lacan. Laska is most concerned about the lack of appreciation for Stirner’s work. He is also interested in the strands of Stirner’s thought that he believes appear in the writings of Dora Marsden and Friedrich Nietzsche. Much of Laska’s work is oriented toward the discovery of “evidence” that Stirner influenced Nietzsche.

Contemporary perspectives on the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche are considerably different from those of Stirner. Like Stirner, Nietzsche made individualism a central notion in his philosophy, creating a different form of rebellion against the collectivizing and homogenizing forces of modernity. Unlike Stirner, Nietzsche is a very well known thinker who attracts considerable interest within the academy and popular culture. Along with the Russian American novelist and political philosopher Ayn Rand, Nietzsche is the best known proponent of an individualist critique of modernity. Nietzsche is one of the most preeminent philosophers in the scholarship on philosophy in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The research literature on him is vast. There are several scholarly journals and professional associations in Europe and America that are devoted to the analysis of his thought. Many contemporary academics in Europe and America value Nietzsche’s individualism as an important source of the critiques of modernity.

Nietzsche was born in 1844, the same year The Ego and Its Own was first published. His father and grandfather were Lutheran clergymen. In 1864 he entered Bonn University to study theology and classical philology. He dropped theology a year later, as he transferred to Leipzig University. Soon thereafter Nietzsche discovered the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer and was greatly influenced by his atheism and subjectivism. In 1868 Nietzsche met the other great influence on his early intellectual development, the composer Richard Wagner. The next year he was appointed professor of classical philology at Basel University in Switzerland and began a series of visits to the home of Richard Wagner on Lake Lucerne. He volunteered as a medical officer during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, but was quickly discharged after contracting dysentery and diphtheria. He published his first book, The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music, in 1872. This was followed in 1873 with the publication of the first in a series of Untimely Meditations on David Strauss, Schopenhauer, and Wagner. He broke off his friendship with Wagner in 1876 and published his initial criticism of the composer in Richard Wagner in Bayreuth in 1877. In 1883 he published his masterpiece, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and Nobody, which develops the notion of the overhuman. This was followed in 1886 by Beyond Good and Evil, in 1887 by On the Genealogy of Morals, and in 1888 by a frenzy of publishing that included Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, and Ecce Homo. In 1889 he suffered a mental breakdown that effectively ended his career as a scholar and writer. He died in 1900. Some of his unpublished writings and notes were published posthumously as The Will to Power.

Beginning with the publication of The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music, which appeared twenty-eight years after The Ego and Its Own, critics saw some striking similarities between Stirner and Nietzsche. Both were critical of collectivism, the state, morality, Christianity, humanism, and socialism. In the foreword to The Antichrist, Nietzsche introduces his assault on Christianity with a battle cry that could have been written by Stirner: “Reverence for oneself; love for oneself; unconditional freedom with respect to oneself.” Nietzsche was a very wellread scholar, an observation that has prompted egoists and anarchists to suggest that he would have known about The Ego and Its Own and possibly influenced by it.

Did Stirner’s writings have any influence on Nietzsche? Is there any evidence that Nietzsche owes an intellectual debt to Stirner? Are there significant similarities in the thought of the two individualist thinkers? This chapter explores the intellectual relationship, including the similarities and differences, between Stirner and Nietzsche. The chapter argues that, while it seems curious, it highly unlikely that Stirner had a significant influence on Nietzsche. Despite surface similarities that include a critique of modernity based on individualism, the differences in the philosophies of the two individualists are too great to comprise any sort of significant relationship.

The question of whether Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner has a long and interesting history. Part of the reason why there is interest in an intellectual “relationship,” is the suspicion that Stirner and Nietzsche argue for a similar type of egoism. Some anarchists and egoists were adamant about the similarity during the “Stirner revival” at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. From the 1890s to the first couple of decades in the twentieth century, interest in Nietzsche’s work expanded in Europe, Great Britain, and America. The attention Nietzsche received in the 1880s and 1890s sparked a renewed interest in Stirner among radical individualists, part of which included the search for points of convergence in the two philosophies. Tucker’s Liberty, for example, not only introduced English-speaking individualists to the work of Stirner, it also provided the first English translations and discussions of Nietzsche in America. Tucker himself argued that his readers should appropriate ideas from Nietzsche that help make the case for anarchism and egoism, such as Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity and the state. Journals such as Egoism, The Egoist, and The Eagle and the Serpent included enthusiastic commentary about both Nietzsche and Stirner. The title of the last of these journals is a clear reference to the hero’s two animal companions in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Stirner’s writings had been neglected, and were largely unknown, until James L. Walker and George Schumm began discussing them in the 1880s in Egoism and Liberty. Stirner’s primary work was not broadly available to English-speaking audiences until 1907. At the end of the nineteenth century, neither Stirner nor Nietzsche were well-understood in the United States nor in Great Britain, except by a few scholars, as well as anarchist, atheist, and egoist intellectuals. What mattered to the individualist anarchists and egoists in fin de siècle Europe and America was the excitement that accompanied the discovery that both philosophers articulated an individualist opposition to modernity, the state, and the emergent form of monopoly capitalism. Nietzsche and Stirner espoused atheism and egoism. Both attacked capitalism and socialism. Both philosophers resisted the dispossession and downward leveling of persons that egoists and anarchists thought inherent in modernity.

James L. Walker and Georg Simmel were among the few voices in this period who acknowledged the important differences between Stirner and Nietzsche. They cast doubt on the notion that Nietzsche’s thought supported anarchism or the type of egoism that Stirner espoused. Walker said that Stirner articulated the notion of a self-liberated individual, free from law, morality, and ideological control. Stirner worked within the dialectical tradition to complete Hegel’s assault on alienation. Stirner adopted a type of Hegelian view of history in which Christianity and the French Revolution are cited as critical events in the rise of modernity. Both events generated new forms of direct and ideological control. Simmel argued that Stirner eschewed the reverence for nobility that Nietzsche promoted. Stirner was a tough-minded realist, an antihumanist, and a critical thinker who outlined a philosophic and historical foundation for individual opposition to all forms of external control and measurement of the unique individual. His notion of the unique one is open to any and all who are willing to “own” their thoughts and behavior, to appropriate and consume their life for their own self-enjoyment. He despised hierarchy and objected to the treatment of laborers, children, and women. He cultivated an attitude of opposition to the rich and powerful. In contrast, Nietzsche was a humanist, poet, novelist, musician, and artist. He looked to the past for inspiration for the future; he despised Christianity as decadent and urged a renaissance of ancient Greek ideals. Nietzsche argued that systematizers and dialecticians like Hegel lack integrity. Unlike Stirner, Nietzsche approved of Feuerbach’s critique of Christianity because of its humanism. Nietzsche espoused not freedom and self-ownership, but duty, harshness, creativity, and sincerity. Unlike Stirner, he was a philosopher of elitism and nobility who sought the evolution of a spiritual ideal that would transcend human weakness and mediocrity.

THE CONTROVERSY OVER STIRNER’S INFLUENCE
The broad interest in egoism and the notion of the “superman” in modernist literature and criticism in the early 1900s encouraged interest in, and conflated the thought of, otherwise divergent “individualist” writers and philosophers. Perhaps the most noteworthy of the efforts to equate “egoists” and “supermen” was James Huneker’s study of Stendhal, Baudelaire, Flaubert, Ibsen, Nietzsche, and Stirner, entitled Egoists, A Book of Supermen. Huneker was an American music critic who was best known for his study of Chopin. He was also proficient in the study of literature and the arts. He was one of the first to analyze and comment on Ibsen, Wagner, Nietzsche, and Stirner in English. He published a lengthy analysis of Stirner in the New York Times in April 1907, soon after Byington’s translation of The Ego and Its Own appeared. This early essay eventually stirred a discussion on the paper’s editorial page in 1909 and became Huneker’s chapter on Stirner in Egoists. The 1907 article clearly states Huneker’s surprise at learning that Nietzsche, the poet and rhapsodist, had a forerunner in Stirner. Noting the stylistic differences, and Walker’s early admonition against any equation of Stirner and Nietzsche, Huneker nevertheless makes the first case in English, in the New York Times no less, for a relationship between the “prophet of egoism” and the “poet of egoism.” Huneker’s article on Stirner and his book on egoists cemented the idea in public discourse in America and Great Britain that Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner. Huneker reports that in the 1890s he began to understand “that Nietzsche used Stirner as a springboard, a point of departure.” It is in the chapter on Nietzsche in Egoists where Huneker is most direct about Nietzsche’s debt to Stirner. According to Huneker, Nietzsche was a philosopher who lacked “originality” and “was not one of the world’s great men.” His work has “the familiar ring of Max Stirner and his doctrine of the ego.” Moreover, Stirner must have “imitated Nietzsche in advance” and the “dyed-in-the-wool Nietzscheans” never acknowledge that their “master had read and digested Max Stirner’s anarchistic work, The Ego and Its Own.”

Although it had little effect on the reception of either Nietzsche or Stirner in Great Britain and America, the question about the relationship appeared initially two decades earlier in Germany just as Nietzsche’s writings were gaining renown. The arguments in favor of Stirner’s influence on Nietzsche were typically based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence. In 1889, Eduard von Hartmann, the author of The Philosophy of the Unconscious (1869), which discusses Stirner’s ideas, publicly accused Nietzsche of plagiarizing Stirner. Hartmann’s accusation was taken as significant evidence of Stirner’s influence because Nietzsche had written a hostile review of Hartmann’s book in the second of his Untimely Meditations. Hartmann argues that Nietzsche must have known about Stirner since Nietzsche knew The Philosophy of the Unconscious intimately and focused his critique on the chapter that discusses Stirner. A similar accusation arose earlier in Nietzsche’s career that he must have known about The Ego and Its Own because it is discussed in Friedrich A. Lange’s 1866 book, The History of Materialism, another intellectual history that Nietzsche devoured in his youth. Lange’s survey of materialist thought is the same book that inspired John Henry Mackay to learn the facts of Stirner’s life and thought.

Some of Nietzsche’s friends also claimed that he knew about Stirner and, at a minimum, felt some affinity with the dialectical egoist. Nietzsche spent some time living with Franz and Ida Overbeck at different points during 1880–1883. After Nietzsche’s death, Franz Overbeck confirmed the claim of Adolf Baumgartner, reportedly Nietzsche’s favorite student, that he borrowed The Ego and Its Own from the Basel University library on July 14, 1874, “on Nietzsche’s warmest recommendations.” Ida Overbeck also reported that Nietzsche once mentioned his appreciation of Stirner, but then retracted his statement fearing another accusation of plagiarism. “Forget it,” he told her. “I did not want to mention it at all.” Further, there is circumstantial evidence that Nietzsche may have discussed Stirner with his early mentor, Richard Wagner, who was certainly familiar with Stirner and knew the anarchist Michael Bakunin very well. Nietzsche was also friends with the conductor Hans von Bulow, Cosima Wagner’s first husband. Bulow was a great admirer of Stirner, probably knew him personally, and even worked with John Henry Mackay to place a memorial plaque at Stirner’s last residence in Berlin. Nietzsche and von Bulow held long conversations in Basel in 1872, exchanged gifts, and were friendly at least until 1889. The suggestion is that Nietzsche learned about Stirner from one of his strongest supporters in the arts. There is also some newer research on the “relationship” between Stirner and Nietzsche that argues that Eduard Mushacke, the father of one of Nietzsche’s school friends, had been a close friend of Stirner. Nietzsche apparently developed a friendship with the “old Mushacke.” The conversations between the two reportedly generated Nietzsche’s “initial crisis” that led to his study of Arthur Schopenhauer and, presumably, an individualist turn informed by, or inspired by, Stirner. Continue reading (en) Two Who Made an Insurrection: Stirner, Nietzsche, and the Revolt against Modernity

(es-en-pt) Yo y después yo

Relato en españoñ e inglés de un individualista en guerra contra la civilización, sobre colectivismo, drogas, Terrorismo  y Naturaleza Salvaje. Firmado por alguno de las “Individualidades anti sociales por la caída de la civilización”.

¡Adelante con la crítica y práctica Eco-extremista!

¡Contra el progreso humano y sus valores!


Yo y después yo

Me alejé del rebaño, escapé de falsas amistades, de hipócritas relaciones de compañerismo. Me cansé de las reuniones de convivencia del modo correcto y normal que impone esta civilización. Convivencias basadas en el consumo de alcohol, drogas, charlas moribundas y repetitivas, ¿sólo para qué?, simple… para continuar con una relación vacía. Como individualista con tendencias eco extremistas, me declaro enemigo de cualquier droga (legal o ilegal) que domestique mis instintos salvajes y violentos. Estar atento y preparado para cualquier cosa, la vida es caótica y una vida inmersa en el ataque a esta civilización tecno-industrial, es aún más caótica.

Me lanzo a una guerra contra mi yo, el yo de unos años atrás. Aquel que aún creía en la farsa de la esperanza revolucionaria, que depositaba su esfuerzo físico y psicológico en el despertar del pueblo, me cansé de esperar la revolución, abandoné esa idea que ahora me resulta nauseabunda. Las palabras revolucionarias sólo sirven para llenar la boca de izquierdistas o algunos que otros anarquistas hambrientos de atención. Cuando hablo de revolución, no sólo me refiero a la propuesta por comunistas o anarquistas, que buscan la expropiación de las fábricas, las colectividades, el asambleísmo etc. También me refiero a la ilusa idea del primitivismo, en este punto de la historia eso es sólo un sueño, algo tan utópico. Estamos en una civilización dependiente de las tecnologías hasta para la más mínima acción, donde los instintos salvajes han desaparecido casi por completo. Para esta civilización ajena a la naturaleza es imposible tener esa regresión a las más primitivas formas de vida. Cuando las nuevas tendencias son el altruismo, el apoyo al prójimo, el humanismo, yo cada vez más me alejo del humano. Su altruismo hipócrita que sólo se basa en buscar la aceptación de la sociedad en la que vive “el altruista” o en la forma más enfermiza; el altruismo a cambio de “likes”, son el pan de cada día en este terreno. El dominio total a triunfado, adolescentes destruyendo sus cuerpos cada día con decenas de vicios, con aspiraciones tan decadentes como tener el mejor celular, el mejor automóvil, la pareja con el mejor físico. ¿Eso es el gran progreso humano?

¿Amargado? ¿Pesimista? ¡Sí! Imposible ser feliz en este mundo gris que asfixia, que mata sin freno a La Naturaleza Salvaje. ¡Que siga el exterminio de lo natural!, gritan con fiereza los híper-civilizados agitando la bandera del progreso, con cada una de sus nefastas acciones.

¡Yo y después yo!, grito intentando acabar con mi domesticación, quebrando ataduras de relaciones inútiles, lanzándome a una guerra contra la civilización y sus esclavos. Contra su colectivismo, su altruismo y humanismo, muerte a las relaciones basadas en la hipocresía, larga vida a las afinidades sinceras. Mis afines que me acompañan en esta guerra ya perdida, saben; Para mí siempre seré yo antes que ellos, y viceversa: sus yo antes que mi yo. Así continuaremos porque somos individuos amorales y egoístas.

Opinión breve de Individualidades anti sociales por la caída de la civilización:

Nos enteramos que la madrugada del miércoles diez de agosto, algún grupo o individuo colocó un artefacto incendiario en la sede del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) ubicada en Torreón Coahuila. Para ser sinceros, dicho acto nos sorprendió, ya que esta ciudad es un nido de híper-civilizados y fábrica de dominación y artificialización, donde no son comunes los atentados de esa índole.

También el mismo miércoles un guardia de una camioneta de valores fue asesinado a tiros tras un asalto, ese acto fue realizado por la delincuencia común, de igual forma alentamos ese tipo de actos terrorista que implantan el pánico y la tensión en la sociedad. Un ser que le importe más el dinero (en muchos casos ajeno) que su propia vida, sólo merece morir.

¡Por la defensa extrema de La Naturaleza Salvaje!

¡Adelante pesimistas y nihilistas terroristas, eco extremistas y anarquistas anti civilización!

¡Por el ataque indiscriminado y selectivo!

¡Mantener viva la crítica y la acción contra la civilización tecno-industrial!

¡Con La Naturaleza de nuestro lado!

-Algún individualista –

-Individualidades anti sociales por la caída de la civilización-

Torreón, verano 2016


I separated myself from the herd, I left behind false friendships, and the hypocritical relationships of camaraderie. I tired of good and normal social gatherings that civilization imposes. Gatherings based on the the consumption of alcohol, drugs, dead and repetitive small talk, and all for what? Simple, in order to continue an empty relationship. As an individualist with eco-extremist tendencies, I declare myself the enemy of any drug (legal or illegal) that domesticates my savage and violent instincts. To be aware and ready for anything: life is chaotic and a life immersed in attack against techno-industrial civilization is even more so. I undertake a war aginast my “I”, the “I” of some years back. The one who believed in the farce of revolutionary hope, who spent all of his physical and psychological strength trying to wake up the people. I got tired of hoping in revolution. I abandoned that idea that now makes me sick. Revolutionary words only serve to fill the mouths of leftists, or some other anarchists who thirst for attention. When I speak of revolution, I am not just referring to what is spoken of by communists or anarchists who look to the expropriation of factories, collectives, assemblies, etc. I am also referring to the deluded idea of primitivism, which at this point in history is only a dream, something very utopian. We are in a civilization that depends on technology even for the smallest action, where savage instincts have almost completely disappeared. For this civilization so foreign to nature that it is impossible to have that regression to the most primitive forms of life. When the new tendencies are altruism, support of one’s neighbor, and humanism, I increasingly separate myself from the human. Its hypocritical altruism is only based in looking for acceptance from the society in which the “altruist” exists, or in the sickest sort of way. Altruism in exchange for “likes” are the daily bread of this territory. Total domination has triumphed, adolescents destroying their bodies every day with dozens of vices, with decadent aspirations of having the best Smartphone, the best car, the partner with the nicest body. This is the leap of human progress? Bitter? Pessimistic? Yes! It is impossible to be happy in this gray world that chokes us, that has an unrelenting drive to kill Wild Nature. The hyper-civilized under the banner of progress fiercely cry with each one of their disgusting actions: “Let the extermination of the natural continue!”

“I and afterwards I!” I cry trying to finish off my domestication, breaking the bonds of useless relationships, launching headlong into a war against civilization and its slaves. Against its collectivism, its altruism and humanism. Death to the relationships founded on hypocrisy! Long life to sincere affinities! My allies who fight this already lost war along with me know: For me it will always be me before them, and vice versa: their “I” before my “I”. Thus we will continue since we are amoral and egoist individuals.

A brief opinion of the Anti-social Individualities for the fall of civilization:

We learned that early in the morning of Wednesday, August 10th, a group or individual placed an explosive device at the headquarters of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) located in Torreón Coahuila. To be honest, this action surprised us, since this city is a hotbed of the hyper-civilized and a factory of domination and artificialization, and these sorts of attacks are not common.

Also on the same Wednesday, the guard of an armored security truck was shot dead during an assault. This was an act also carried out by “common criminals”. In any case, we endorse these types of terrorist acts that cause panic and stress in society. Any person who is worried more about money (often not even his own) than his own life deserves to die.

For the extreme defense of Wild Nature!

Forward pessimists, nihilist terrorists, eco-extremists, and anti-civilization anarchists!

For indiscriminate and selective attack!

Keep active criticisms and actions against techno-industrial civilization alive!

With Wild Nature at our side!

-An individualist –

-Antisocial Individualities for the fall of civilization-

Torreón, Summer 2016


Eu e Depois Eu

Afastei-me do rebanho, escapei de falsas amizades, de relações hipócritas de companheirismo. Cansei-me das reuniões de convivência do modo correto e normal que impõe a civilização, convivências baseadas no consumo de álcool, drogas, conversas decadentes e repetitivas, apenas para quê? Simples… Para continuar com uma relação vazia. Como individualista com tendências eco-extremistas declaro-me inimigo de qualquer droga (legal ou ilegal) que domestique meus instintos selvagens e violentos. Devo estar atento e preparado para qualquer coisa, a vida é caótica e uma vida imersa no ataque a esta civilização tecno-industrial é ainda mais caótica.

Lanço-me a uma guerra contra o meu eu, o eu de alguns anos atrás, aquele que ainda acreditava na farsa da esperança revolucionária, que depositava seu esforço físico e psicológico no despertar do povo, cansei-me de esperar a revolução, abandonei esta ideia que agora me causa náuseas. As palavras revolucionárias apenas servem para encher a boca de esquerdistas ou de algum outro anarquista faminto de atenção. Quando falo de revolução não apenas me refiro a proposta por comunistas ou anarquistas que buscam a expropriação das fábricas, das coletividades, o assembleísmo etc., também refiro-me a ideia ilusória do primitivismo. Neste ponto da história isso é apenas um sonho, algo tão utópico. Estamos em uma civilização dependente das tecnologias até mesmo para a mínima ação onde os instintos selvagens desapareceram quase por completo. Para esta civilização alheia a natureza é impossível obter esta regressão às mais primitivas formas de vida. Quando as novas tendências são o altruísmo, o apoio mútuo, o humanismo, eu cada vez me afasto do humano. Seu altruísmo hipócrita que apenas se baseia em buscar a aceitação da sociedade na qual vive “o altruísta” ou na forma mais repugnante; o altruísmo por troca de “likes”, são o pão de cada dia neste terreno. O domínio total triunfou, adolescentes destruindo seus corpos a cada dia com dezenas de vícios, com aspirações tão decadentes como ter o melhor celular, o melhor carro, o par com o melhor físico. Este é o grande progresso humano?

Amargurado? Pessimista? Sim! Impossível ser feliz neste mundo cinzento que asfixia, que mata desenfreadamente a Natureza Selvagem. “Que siga o extermínio do natural!”, gritam ferozmente os hiper-civilizados agitando a bandeira do progresso com cada uma de suas nefastas ações.

Eu e depois eu!, grito tentando acabar com minha domesticação rompendo laços de relacionamentos inúteis, lançando-me a uma guerra contra a civilização e seus escravos, contra seu coletivismo, seu altruísmo e humanismo. Morte às relações baseadas na hipocrisia, vida longa para as afinidades sinceras. Meus afins que acompanham-me nesta guerra já perdida sabem; para mim sempre será eu antes deles, e vice-versa: seus eus antes do meu eu. Assim continuaremos porque somos indivíduos amorais e egoístas.

Opinião breve de Individualidades Antissociais Pela Queda da Civilização:

Nos enteramos que na madrugada de quarta-feira, 10 de agosto, algum grupo ou indivíduo colocou um artefato incendiário na sede do Partido Revolucionário Institucional (PRI) localizado em Torreón, Coahuila. Para ser honesto, ficamos surpresos com o dito ato, já que esta cidade é um ninho de hiper-civilizados e fábrica de dominação e artificialidade, onde não são comuns os atentados desta índole.

Também na mesma quarta-feira um guarda de um carro-forte foi assassinato a tiros após uma assalto. Esse ato foi realizado pela delinquêncoa comum e de igual maneira incentivamos esses tipos de atos terroristas que implantam o pânico e a tensão na sociedade. Um ser que se preocupa mais com o dinheiro (em muitos casos, alheio) que sua própria vida, apenas merece morrer.

Pela defesa extrema da Natureza Selvagem!

Adiante pessimistas e niilistas terroristas, eco-extremistas e anarquistas anti-civilização!

Pelo ataque indiscriminado e seletivo!

Manter viva a crítica e a ação contra a civilização tecno-industrial!

Com a Natureza do nosso lado!

-Algum individualista –

-Individualidades Antissociais Pela Queda da Civilização-

Torreón, verão de 2016