The Unique and Its Property – Wolfi Landstreicher's Long Awaited Translation of Max Stirner's Masterpiece Finally Available

  • Posted on: 1 June 2017
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)
The Unique and Its Property

“Some call it The Anarchists’ Bible, others call it The Billionaires’ Bible”
—Benjamin R. Tucker

“A veritable Breviary of Destruction, a striking and dangerous book.”
—James Huneker in The New York Times

FIRST NEW ENGLISH-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION SINCE 1907.

The Unique and Its Property brings to the world a radical view: egoism, the notion that the individual is the measure of all things. Max Stirner’s opus was first published in Germany in 1844. In 1907 Benjamin R. Tucker published the first English-language translation of Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum, carried out by Steven T. Byington and titled The Ego and His Own. Every edition of Stirner’s book since that time has been a reproduction or revision of the Byington translation—until now.

In the first new English-language translation since 1907, egoist anarchist author and historian Wolfi Landstreicher has brought forward both the form and the intent of Stirner’s work. Where Byington downplayed or missed Stirner’s more biting criticisms and his humor, this new edition delivers every “occasional crudity” and all the “playful ferocity” found in the original German.

Every group demands loyalty, adherence to their notion of right and wrong, and most of all opposition to the out-group. The Unique and Its Property is an antidote to moralists of the sacred and the secular alike. It is an illuminating torch to light the lonely path of the intrepid individual, not incidentally also setting ablaze every prevailing politic and philosophy.

Max Stirner

Johann Kaspar Schmidt (October 25, 1806 – June 26, 1856), better known as Max Stirner, was a German philosopher. He is often seen as one of the forerunners of nihilism, existentialism, psychoanalytic theory, postmodernism, and individualist anarchism. Stirner’s main work is Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. This work was first published in 1844 in Leipzig, and has since appeared in numerous editions and translations.

Wolfi Landstreicher

Wolfi Landstreicher is a nom de plume of a contemporary egoist/anarchist philosopher involved in theoretical and practical activity. He has more recently gone by Apio Ludd, but has also been known as Feral Faun (from approximately 1982 to 1992), and has written under other names and unattributed.

Wolfi began his own translation of Max Stirner’s Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum in 2010.

He edited the anarchist publication Willful Disobedience, which was published from 1996 until 2005, and currently publishes a variety of anarchist, radical, surrealist and poetic pamphlets and booklets, including the egoist journal My Own, since 2012.

His ideas are influenced by insurrectionary anarchism, Max Stirner’s egoism, surrealism, the Situationist International and non-primitivist critiques of civilization.

From: http://www.theuniqueanditsproperty.com/

Tags: 
egoism
anarchism
Max Stirner
wolfi landstreicher
Spooks
book
category: 
Other

Comments

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 07:49

http://www.underworldamusements.com/product/the-unique-and-its-property-...

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 08:51

http://littleblackcart.com/books/anarchy/the-unique-and-its-property/

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 09:56

https://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Sorcerers-Stone-Rowling/dp/059035342X

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 08:48

http://littleblackcart.com/books/anarchy/the-unique-and-its-property/

victor scourge (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 10:15

but where can i steal it, truly making it MY OWN?

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 10:16

Nb4 Sir Einzige, Emile, Leway, Hunter and professor rat ruin the thread with their two cents.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 11:19

looks spooky.

but really, I love Wolfi's writings in Willful Disobedience, I loved his books on Iraq, and on Os Cangaceiros. But I just can't get into the Stirner stuff. Maybe it's just that the people who are super into egoism and Stirner tend to be completely insufferable do-nothings.... not to generalize....

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 11:43

Online publications and commenting is doing something! Also wanking, conversations, gay sauna scenestering...

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 13:13

Fuck Underworld Amusements

Le Way (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 13:52

It will be interesting comparing this translation with my version translated by ST Byington, but regardless, I still absorbed the essential idea. In the preface it is said that the title as "The Unique Individual and its Property"would have avoided the potentially distracting psychoanalytical connotations of the Tucker or Byington alternative.

Gunter (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 15:11

Maybe a bibliophile would pay to see the “occasional crudity” and all the “playful ferocity” found in the original German. So is it really relevant to the awesome message of this work that it includes a few extra adjectives and phrases like Arschloch - Asshole, Küss meinen Arsch - Kiss my ass, Sprich nicht mit mir, du verrückter Mann! - Do not talk to me crazy man! and finally, which is my favorite, Deine Oma masturbiert im stehen! - Your grandma masturbates standing up! ? I suppose use of these in a certain context adds a bit for the entertainment element, which adds greatly to the enjoyment of a book, and may make it more a popular.

Le Way (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 15:37

- Halts The Fuck Maul!....Shut The Fuck Up! ;)

emile

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 14:08

Stirner died in 1856, three years before Darwin published his 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'.

This is unfortunate, as far as comparative understanding of Stirner's and Nietzsche's philosophies go, since Nietzsche's 'anti-Darwin' writings clarified Nietzsche's view of self-and-other in a manner that would have helped to clarify Stirner's; i.e. Nietzsche's view of evolution in terms of an inhabitant-habitat nonduality [endosmosis - exosmosis nonduality] explains his 'Amor Fati' and and also the non-necessity of having to kluge the unifying of egos after breaking them apart, as Stirner had to do; i.e.

"Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint – that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting. He denies society as being an actual entity, calling society a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality" (The Ego and Its Own).

This splitting everyone apart compels Stirner to have to come up with a kluge/explanation as to how to 'work together', for which Stirner proposes a 'Union of Egos';

"Stirner's idea of the "Union of Egoists", was first expounded in The Ego and Its Own. The Union is understood as a non-systematic association, which Stirner proposed in contradistinction to the state.The Union is understood as a relation between egoists which is continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will. The Union requires that all parties participate out of a conscious egoism."

Nietzsche's knowledge of, and writing on 'evolution' give good REAL NATURAL GROUNDING reference for discussing views on the 'one and the many' while Stirner, without such references, is forced to 'put back together what he has cast asunder' [into innumerable self-interested egos] by the 'wilful' 'union of egos' kluge.

Nietzsche's solution for the relationship between the individual and the collective is 'the will to power' which is a need or deficiency that inductively actualizes the individual who is, at the same time, BOTH 'the all' AND a feature within 'the all' in the manner of a member-system within an ecosystem where relational influence [epigenetic influence] is in a natural primacy over individual material systems and their actions [genetic expression]. Thus, the individual is, at the same time, 'the all' and 'the individual'. The 'big sagacity' natural Self is the voice of 'the all' and 'speaks from the gut' while the 'little sagacity' ego-self is the voice of the individual and 'speaks from the head'. [see Also Sprach Zarathustra]. in the 'Uebermensch', the natural Self is in an inherent primacy over the ego-self, within a ego-self -- natural Self nonduality [to work with this nondual concept requires BOTH AND rather than EITHER/OR logic].

Both Stirner and Nietzsche wanted to break out of the constraining beliefs in 'truths' and rationality, and Stirner used the kluge of Union of egos to come up with organized action that did not depend on compliance with over-arching belief in truth and rational models, as constitutes 'the State'. This makes Stirner's band look like a band of self-interest pursuing 'survival of the fittest', rather than a Kropotkinian 'mutual support collective. Meanwhile, Nietzsche solves the problem of 'the one and the many' by assuming that the individual is, at the same time, BOTH itself AND other [as with the Lamarckian view wherein epigenetic influence [field] is inductively actualizing genetic [material] expression [i.e. field is exciting the gathering of material form at the same time as the gathering matter is transforming the field that is bringing it together]/

Too bad Stirner didn't live beyond Darwin's publication of "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life', as it could have helped clarify Stirner's treatment relations of 'the one and the many' after putting the stake in the ground of the individual as a self-interest driven kid in the candy store of nature in 'Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum'

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 14:17

What the fuck does this have to do with anything in the post article announcing the publication?

emilemile (not verified)

Fri, 06/02/2017 - 14:47

Nietzsche's solution for the relationship between the individual and the collective is 'the will to power' which is a need or deficiency that inductively actualizes the individual who is, at the same time, BOTH 'the all' AND a feature within 'the all' in the manner of a member-system within an ecosystem where relational influence [epigenetic influence] is in a natural primacy over individual material systems and their actions [genetic expression]. Thus, the individual is, at the same time, 'the all' and 'the individual'. The 'big sagacity' natural Self is the voice of 'the all' and 'speaks from the gut' while the 'little sagacity' ego-self is the voice of the individual and 'speaks from the head'. [see Also Sprach Zarathustra]. in the 'Uebermensch', the natural Self is in an inherent primacy over the ego-self, within a ego-self -- natural Self nonduality [to work with this nondual concept requires BOTH AND rather than EITHER/OR logic].

Too bad Stirner didn't live beyond Darwin's publication of "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life', as it could have helped clarify Stirner's treatment relations of 'the one and the many' after putting the stake in the ground of the individual as a self-interest driven kid in the candy store of nature in 'Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum'

Both Stirner and Nietzsche wanted to break out of the constraining beliefs in 'truths' and rationality, and Stirner used the kluge of Union of egos to come up with organized action that did not depend on compliance with over-arching belief in truth and rational models, as constitutes 'the State'. This makes Stirner's band look like a band of self-interest pursuing 'survival of the fittest', rather than a Kropotkinian 'mutual support collective. Meanwhile, Nietzsche solves the problem of 'the one and the many' by assuming that the individual is, at the same time, BOTH itself AND other [as with the Lamarckian view wherein epigenetic influence [field] is inductively actualizing genetic [material] expression [i.e. field is exciting the gathering of material form at the same time as the gathering matter is transforming the field that is bringing it together]/

This is unfortunate, as far as comparative understanding of Stirner's and Nietzsche's philosophies go, since Nietzsche's 'anti-Darwin' writings clarified Nietzsche's view of self-and-other in a manner that would have helped to clarify Stirner's; i.e. Nietzsche's view of evolution in terms of an inhabitant-habitat nonduality [endosmosis - exosmosis nonduality] explains his 'Amor Fati' and and also the non-necessity of having to kluge the unifying of egos after breaking them apart, as Stirner had to do; i.e.

This splitting everyone apart compels Stirner to have to come up with a kluge/explanation as to how to 'work together', for which Stirner proposes a 'Union of Egos';

"Stirner's idea of the "Union of Egoists", was first expounded in The Ego and Its Own. The Union is understood as a non-systematic association, which Stirner proposed in contradistinction to the state.The Union is understood as a relation between egoists which is continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will. The Union requires that all parties participate out of a conscious egoism."

Nietzsche's knowledge of, and writing on 'evolution' give good REAL NATURAL GROUNDING reference for discussing views on the 'one and the many' while Stirner, without such references, is forced to 'put back together what he has cast asunder' [into innumerable self-interested egos] by the 'wilful' 'union of egos' kluge.

"Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint – that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting. He denies society as being an actual entity, calling society a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality" (The Ego and Its Own).

Stirner died in 1856, three years before Darwin published his 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'.

emile

Sat, 06/03/2017 - 02:07

there has always been interest in whether stirner influenced nietzsche's views, and in 'what is this difference between these two philosophies' since they seem to have so much in common that some would accuse nietzsche of plagiarizing stirner.

my comment is in regard to fundamental differences between stirner and nietzsche that will not be impacted by stirner retranslations.

basic inquiry into the relationship between 'self and other' leads one to inquiry into evolution. nietzsche explored this but stirner, evidently, did not.

both stirner and nietzsche were trying to get out from under the yoke of rationality, which is where rule-based structures like the State come from.

stirner got out of it by suggesting that every individual should pursue their own self-interests. in this case, rules, which are generalizations that a collective imposes on all its members, would be ignored.

nietzsche, on the other hand, got out of it by questioning our standard DUALIST model of humans as 'independent material beings' as in Darwinism. accepting the Darwinist theory means that one can only explain 'mutual support' as coming from the common WILL of multiple independent individuals, whereas in the evolutionary theories explored by Nietzsche,

"Having derived the "will to power" from three anti-Darwin evolutionists, as well as Dumont, it seems appropriate that he [Nietzsche] should use his "will to power" as an anti-Darwinian explanation of evolution. He expresses a number of times[21] the idea that adaptation and the struggle to survive is a secondary drive in the evolution of animals, behind the desire to expand one’s power – the "will to power". Nonetheless, in his notebooks he continues to expand the theory of the will to power.[22] Influenced by his earlier readings of Boscovich, he began to develop a physics of the will to power. The idea of matter as centers of force is translated into matter as centers of will to power. Nietzsche wanted to slough off the theory of matter, which he viewed as a relic of the metaphysics of substance." -- Wikipedia

'matter as the center of force' is like 'matter is pushing other things around', controlling their actions, creating things, whereas 'centers of the will to power' implies that something surrounding the centre is inductively actualizing evolution [epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression]. In this case, the centres become like expanding storm-cells that may appear to be 'things-in-themselves' (and characterized as such using language-and-grammar), but are relational forms without any internal animating source upon which rules can be imposed.

"“And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income …” –Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, 1067

If in the retranslation of Stirner, you are not interested in the ideas themselves and their place in the history of ideas, but only in the personality of Stirner and how his crude jokes etc. that were previously edited out may nuance Stirner's personality differently, then my comment will be off topic to you.

EM-501 (not verified)

Sat, 06/03/2017 - 04:45

If in the retranslation of Stirner, you are not interested in the ideas themselves and their place in the history of ideas, but only in the personality of Stirner and how his crude jokes etc. that were previously edited out may nuance Stirner's personality differently, then my comment will be off topic to you.

"“And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income …” –Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, 1067

"Having derived the "will to power" from three anti-Darwin evolutionists, as well as Dumont, it seems appropriate that he [Nietzsche] should use his "will to power" as an anti-Darwinian explanation of evolution. He expresses a number of times[21] the idea that adaptation and the struggle to survive is a secondary drive in the evolution of animals, behind the desire to expand one’s power – the "will to power". Nonetheless, in his notebooks he continues to expand the theory of the will to power.[22] Influenced by his earlier readings of Boscovich, he began to develop a physics of the will to power. The idea of matter as centers of force is translated into matter as centers of will to power. Nietzsche wanted to slough off the theory of matter, which he viewed as a relic of the metaphysics of substance." -- Wikipedia

both stirner and nietzsche were trying to get out from under the yoke of rationality, which is where rule-based structures like the State come from.

basic inquiry into the relationship between 'self and other' leads one to inquiry into evolution. nietzsche explored this but stirner, evidently, did not.

stirner got out of it by suggesting that every individual should pursue their own self-interests. in this case, rules, which are generalizations that a collective imposes on all its members, would be ignored.

nietzsche, on the other hand, got out of it by questioning our standard DUALIST model of humans as 'independent material beings' as in Darwinism. accepting the Darwinist theory means that one can only explain 'mutual support' as coming from the common WILL of multiple independent individuals, whereas in the evolutionary theories explored by Nietzsche,

my comment is in regard to fundamental differences between stirner and nietzsche that will not be impacted by stirner retranslations.

'matter as the center of force' is like 'matter is pushing other things around', controlling their actions, creating things, whereas 'centers of the will to power' implies that something surrounding the centre is inductively actualizing evolution [epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression]. In this case, the centres become like expanding storm-cells that may appear to be 'things-in-themselves' (and characterized as such using language-and-grammar), but are relational forms without any internal animating source upon which rules can be imposed.

there has always been interest in whether stirner influenced nietzsche's views, and in 'what is this difference between these two philosophies' since they seem to have so much in common that some would accuse nietzsche of plagiarizing stirner.

SirEinzige

Mon, 06/05/2017 - 08:23

It makes perfect sense to stenghten Stirner's thought with Nietzschean auxiliary language and analysis. Obviously the latter's gaping weakness is that he failed on the issue of authority vs non authority whereas Stirner is the definitive when it comes an analysis against totalizing structures of existence. You do need that Heraclitan lens to make it better though. All in all Nietzsche is a solid peripheral to the perennial Stirner.

EM-501 (not verified)

Mon, 06/05/2017 - 08:46

This splitting everyone apart compels Stirner to have to come up with a kluge/explanation as to how to 'work together', for which Stirner proposes a 'Union of Egos';

Too bad Stirner didn't live beyond Darwin's publication of "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life', as it could have helped clarify Stirner's treatment relations of 'the one and the many' after putting the stake in the ground of the individual as a self-interest driven kid in the candy store of nature in 'Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum'

"Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint – that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting. He denies society as being an actual entity, calling society a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality" (The Ego and Its Own).

Nietzsche's solution for the relationship between the individual and the collective is 'the will to power' which is a need or deficiency that inductively actualizes the individual who is, at the same time, BOTH 'the all' AND a feature within 'the all' in the manner of a member-system within an ecosystem where relational influence [epigenetic influence] is in a natural primacy over individual material systems and their actions [genetic expression]. Thus, the individual is, at the same time, 'the all' and 'the individual'. The 'big sagacity' natural Self is the voice of 'the all' and 'speaks from the gut' while the 'little sagacity' ego-self is the voice of the individual and 'speaks from the head'. [see Also Sprach Zarathustra]. in the 'Uebermensch', the natural Self is in an inherent primacy over the ego-self, within a ego-self -- natural Self nonduality [to work with this nondual concept requires BOTH AND rather than EITHER/OR logic].

"Stirner's idea of the "Union of Egoists", was first expounded in The Ego and Its Own. The Union is understood as a non-systematic association, which Stirner proposed in contradistinction to the state.The Union is understood as a relation between egoists which is continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will. The Union requires that all parties participate out of a conscious egoism."

Nietzsche's knowledge of, and writing on 'evolution' give good REAL NATURAL GROUNDING reference for discussing views on the 'one and the many' while Stirner, without such references, is forced to 'put back together what he has cast asunder' [into innumerable self-interested egos] by the 'wilful' 'union of egos' kluge.

This is unfortunate, as far as comparative understanding of Stirner's and Nietzsche's philosophies go, since Nietzsche's 'anti-Darwin' writings clarified Nietzsche's view of self-and-other in a manner that would have helped to clarify Stirner's; i.e. Nietzsche's view of evolution in terms of an inhabitant-habitat nonduality [endosmosis - exosmosis nonduality] explains his 'Amor Fati' and and also the non-necessity of having to kluge the unifying of egos after breaking them apart, as Stirner had to do; i.e.

Both Stirner and Nietzsche wanted to break out of the constraining beliefs in 'truths' and rationality, and Stirner used the kluge of Union of egos to come up with organized action that did not depend on compliance with over-arching belief in truth and rational models, as constitutes 'the State'. This makes Stirner's band look like a band of self-interest pursuing 'survival of the fittest', rather than a Kropotkinian 'mutual support collective. Meanwhile, Nietzsche solves the problem of 'the one and the many' by assuming that the individual is, at the same time, BOTH itself AND other [as with the Lamarckian view wherein epigenetic influence [field] is inductively actualizing genetic [material] expression [i.e. field is exciting the gathering of material form at the same time as the gathering matter is transforming the field that is bringing it together]/

Stirner died in 1856, three years before Darwin published his 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 06/05/2017 - 08:58

That drawing of Stirner which Hegel drew definitely showed us that Stirner was a brooding ultra-railer that's for sure. DON"T TAKE A RAILER TO A PARTY!!!!

Aen (not verified)

Sat, 06/03/2017 - 02:51

free dl or gtfo

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 06/05/2017 - 10:41

Just what the products of US society need -- adolescent narcissism as heroism.

The U.S. anarchist subculture exists to keep anarchist subculture scenesters entertained. It has no necessary social function outside of this. The anarchist subculture is mostly made up of the very young and they usually age out of this scene. The anarcho-scene is an expression of the fact that Americans have been socially engineered by their corporate masters to be incapable of engaging with anything that is not immediately gratifying or entertaining. The trite personal rebellion ethos of contemporary U.S. anarchism is in harmony with the reigning everything-revolves-around-me ethos of consumer society. As such the anarchist scene is not and cannot become an outwardly-directed, oppositional or dangerous phenomenon.

U.S. anarchism is a phenomenon of passivity and disengagement. This kind of posturing is proof positive of this.

SirEinzige

Mon, 06/05/2017 - 10:50

However what does being an " outwardly-directed, oppositional or dangerous phenomenon" have to do with anarchy and life actualization. Islamic extremism achieves this. This is hardly a panacea for ending history, leviathan and civilization, more the likely it plays a role in extending and reshaping it.

Also the follower/followed status engine that drives social media should tell you that people ARE NOT making life for and about themselves. Consumer society and Der Einzige are two different things.

Willliam Gillis (not verified)

Wed, 06/07/2017 - 06:25

Wolfi and I get on okay.

Aragorn once tried to have us debate and after the two of us hung Wolfi backed out forcing A to not use a proxy but show himself.

Aragorn's portrayal of the situation as merely that is a fucking lie.

I did troll the egoist community pretty hard years ago when I called out a group of them on twitter having nazi/fash friends.

Ideologies clash and shift. The Jedi go on. Quietly. Less perceptibly.

hokey religions (not verified)

Wed, 06/07/2017 - 06:37

Luke Skywalker said the Jedi must end.

Willliam Gillis (not verified)

Wed, 06/07/2017 - 06:43

Yeah but the Jedi Order isn't the same as the Jedi philosophy (see Qui-gon), and their order was against their philosophy.

The Jedi can go a little "straw vulcan" but the lightside is about organic unity with all other life forms.

But I will note that the Jedi are consistently anti-slavery and have overthrown empires and governments about it.

Rather than just computation time and algorithm length, you damn well need to consider the reading machine's complexity too! #comeonpeople

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 06/07/2017 - 07:33

Overthrowing governments and destroying the lifeways of others does not seem consistent with an "organic unity with all other life forms" worldview.

Slaves are at worst complicit in their scenario and perhaps at best hapless creatures existentially bound by their scenario. If the chickens of the world were liberated from their coops, they would be killed by foxes, hawks, felinids & other wild or feral creatures. If extinction is too cruel a fate, then it would be the job of the liberation project to breed them back into more robust form capable of surviving outside of enslavement. Or an altering and sterilization of their surroundings advantaging their survival. Both of which remain managment projects of an identified, owned subject for which a director is responsible. Thus the slave remains a slave, only the caretaker role changes hand.

For humans, what path out of domesticity? Genetic engineering towards bigger teeth, claws, more fur, altered dietary requirements, and smaller forebrains?

In terms of the commodified human, is it better to be owned, rented or self-pimped? The abolitionists, capitalists, and free marketeers will espouse the qualities of each mode.

SirEinzige

Wed, 06/07/2017 - 08:52

The key is owness. That is the foundation for any existence in them post-slavery wild. With owness, skill, self determination and ability you find your post domesticated legs again.

Add new comment

More information about text formats

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
p
H
k
w
k
x
c
Enter the code without spaces.