My Surrealistic Egoist Anarcho-Rusticism

My egoist anarchy begins to look like — anarcho-rusticism (ha!). What this means to you makes no real difference to me, unless I care. Regardless. I’m not in charge of your visions, your meanings, your musings.

My anarcho-rusticism has nothing to do with a doctrine, cannot be a blueprint. I’ve not drawn it out. I have no grand plan; even for myself.

I’ve not drawn it out, because ‘it’ is no-thing and I’ve not lived it out yet. I’m writing these words out, after all!

Anarcho-rusticism is simply a couple of notions brought forth; an instance of poesis cobbling themselves together one day of their own accord – image(s) and meaning(s)–pointing toward a description. A surrealist opening of and toward the Marvelous.

The Marvelous: neither ‘thing’ nor state-of-being. But a play where player and played are neither remain figure nor ground; inseparable in the playing.


A small proposal. And this may seem a bit convoluted at first, but it’s my sincere desire in following posts to make this more clear.


Given the conceptual, moralistic, and emotional baggage the word ‘egoism’ carries, I’d like to propose a neologism to stand in for the Stinerian project: adaugeoism. I hate ‘ism’ terminology, but as much as I like Jason McQuinn’s explication of Stirner in the form of ‘critical self-theory,’ I simply find the phrase cumbersome. This may prove to be the case with adaugeoism as well, but we can’t be worse off for the attempt.

Why not ‘egoism?’

Well, as I said in the opening lines ‘egoism’  is too laden with baggage to have much use in conversation. It has such contradictory meanings. ‘Egoism’ may mean to some the ‘rugged individualist’ of capitalist propaganda, particularly of the American variety. It may mean what John Zerzan and others refer to as ‘the free-floating ego’ or solipiscism (even though it’s been explained otherwise on more than one occasion). It may be synonymous with gluttony and sexual-orgies to the religious fundamentalist. Whatever the case may be, ‘egoism’ is fraught with a moral sense of evil. For me, ‘egoism’ is completely at odds with all the above.

Why adaugeoism?

The word ‘adaugeo’ is Latin in origin and means to increase, to nourish, to enlarge, augment (of which it’s related), strengthen; all of which indicates, nicely I think, what McQuinn refers to as ‘the big self’ in contradistinction to a reified image or representation of what one should be, the ‘little self,’ or ‘narcissism’ as Bellamy of FRR uses the latter term.

This is more than a semantic concern, however. It’s practicality, I think, lies in a ‘turn’ we of western persuasion may wish to consider if we wish not to continue to undermine our own lives by way of undermining all planetary life by way of expressing those sets of reifications known as Western Civilization. By way of turning our present inclination for consuming the world-as-things around to augmenting self so that we recognize self-as-world, we may say: ‘all things are no-thing to me.’

All that we presently gaze upon as ‘not-self,’  as ‘other’ as ‘things,’ may potentially become relations, inter-weavings, by which this place, this self-as-place or -nexus, participates fully and yet uniquely, since ‘one’s own,’ one’s property, is no longer a question of possession, but of quality. Self is neither sought nor determined as a ‘what’ (a ‘thing,’ an ‘essence’) nor analyzed as a ‘why’ (a ‘reason,’ a ’cause’) but simply occurs as a ‘where,’ a ‘how,’ and a unique ‘who,’ inseparable from ‘all things.’

This self is so enlarged self and world become singular. We begin ‘here’ so to speak, where we stand, since nearly all pre-/un-modern indigenous peoples already find themselves enmeshed in a host of relationships. It’s their world. Ours is a history of an isolated soul-concept and a far away owner-father god. We’ve gone so far inward and found nothing while all we are dissipate into an absolute nihilistic Here! We’ve desired that which is so far beyond as to find our grasp empty with every skyward clawing. The absolute There never-ending.

To re-approach all those things–until they are ‘things’ no more, they become qualities of self, this uniqueness, sensing and feeling its ownness. To augment this unique instance, oneself… all things are no-thing to me!

Would You Like a Receipt?

I was purchasing some food the other day and was asked, as I always am, if I’d like a receipt. It struck me how odd this question really is. Not only odd, but insidious, although I don’t find any fault with the woman who asked me.

A receipt is basically a way of protecting yourself from others, even against the flesh and blood person ringing up your food. You trust neither them nor anyone else completely because they simply fulfill a role, a role more important within our capitalist civilization than the person who ‘fills it.’ Yeah, you got it, a unique person giving content to a concept, an ideal, a role. How fucking alienating and backward.

Monetary ‘society’ can be nothing but alienating, distrustful, since it is comprised of empty roles, no-bodies, generalities, Procrustean sanctioning, which persons must fill and give content to. Money provides the only means of exchange in quantified units, no matter how pleasant each person is to each other, no matter how nasty the exchange may be emotionally. The role must go on no matter who fills it. This mendacious idol must be maintained at all costs!

And thus, I consider monetization as inherently anti-social.

The receipt is proof-of-purchase of our separation from earth, the demise of gifting and of socializing, giving way to the quantifiable, reified, and the underlying threat of violence where and when non-compliance to these norms are encountered. Property is indeed theft: theft of our social, cultural, embodied emplacement…our very living.

Would you like a receipt? Would you like to remain separated, quantified and alone?