Muh jews

Who let all these spooked idiots into Holla Forums?



Hierarchy is a spook.


a spook

You're going to trigger them

confirmed for having never read stirner



Is socialism a spook?

Of course it is.

He is not talking about race, he is talking about the ethnicity, Europe at the Time was the ruling power regarding philosophical knowledge


the American ethnicity if fucking retarded, for example
this statement is not racists at all

not really, no. Stirner himself proposed some form of socialism he called the "unjion of egoists" (something similar to anarcho-syndicalism). Also, Marx attempted to demonstrate how communism would come if people realised that it is in their material interests as a class to overthrow capitalism.

I mean isn't

also spooks?

That is litterally the opposite of a spook.
Learn what spooks are before you talk about spooks.

Common good & right and wrong are spooks but material self-interest and basic needs are not.

The thing is that appeals to some ideal of humanity or universal morality are essentially arbitrary when they lack any sort of nexus to material reality. These spooks can be used to justify any sort of self-sacrifice, torture or suffering in order to defend something that doesn't actually exist because we've been socially conditioned to place this non-existent spook above our own self interests.

Being despooked then is learning to separate things that you can tangibly perceive (pain, joy, people, things) from those that you can only imagine (gods, morality, culture), because dying for a god or a moral rule that is intangible and immaterial except for as a fiction in your mind is stupid.


There's no such thing as objective self-interest, nor any reason to assume this is more real than our super ego.


also, technically, Freud's concept of the ID talks about it having some form of autonomy, so it can work without subjectivity

It's not about objective interest, it's entirely about pursuing what is in your interest subjectively. Stirnerite philosophy entirely rejects categorical imperatives.

It helps everyone when the newfags out themselves as know-nothings

Sometimes we're even able to educate them too

But then the distinction between spooked and non-spooked is arbitrary.

If you put something above your ego you are spooked

Why would you devote your time to whatever spook instead of decoting it to your ego, they arent your cause

Only inasfar as the distinction between a cat and a dog is also an arbitrary one.

Because I'm not a narcissist.

Only my cause is never to be my cause. Shame on the egoist that thinks only of himself

Really, when is a desire a Pure non-socially conditioned desire instead of a spooked one?

And if then, why does this distinction matter, without invoking egoism as a spook itself?

The desires of your animality

what did he mean by this

if you want to die for your country in a war because you enjoy the thrill: unspooked
if you want to die for your country because: honer and glory: spooked my lad

A bad cop out.

Stirnerites are so reduced and one-dimensional.

And why should thrill be placed above honor?

Egoist =/= Narcissist
Doing nice things for other people is no problem if you like doing nice things for other people. You could be nice because of spooks, too, but the point is that slavery to the spirits is still slavery - since your own views don't come into it, your spooks could just as easily push you to inflict misery on yourself & others, which is when you might be inclined to rid yourself of them.

Because that which is socially imposed can cause you to pursue ends that cause suffering to you & those you love for no good reason. If you follow your own self-interest there is no risk of that. Even if you have a sociopathic desire to hurt others, your egoist desire to avoid suffering they'll inflict upon you in retaliation is likely to counterbalance that so we don't descend into chaos and barbarity.

What do you mean a bad cop out, why should I put the cause of something else above my ego?

You have not replied to this, you just cop'd out my calling it narcissistic

Thrill is a form of tangible joy. Honor is a nothing spook that can lead you into situations out of which you get nothing and only suffer in order to defend a nonexistent thing.


You sound pretty spooked


Calling everything you don't like slavery is a cheap rhetorical trick. You also can't make a difference between "own views" and spooks.

This redefines ego as everything that is good and logical. A rehashed kantian imperative doesn't stop sociopath.

Because the ego is just the holy object of stirnerism and doesn't really mean anything apart from that. It's utter emptiness.

Why is something only good if it feels good?

I really wonder how people like you are in real life, no honor, no integrity, no decency.. just a constant calculation of what would make you feel best.

Utterly spooked


Which still doesn't lead to conclusion that we should distill our being to pure, calculated, self-interest, as if we were abstraction in a dimension of pure game theory.

That's the problem with stirnerism, it's inhuman, hence why it doesn't exist outside of theoretical discussions, it loses in actuality.

My self interest is what interest myself, not how stirner defines it
The fact that stirner agrees with this point of view doesnt make anything invalid

Self interest existed before the spooks

Humanity cares about its cause, Why should I care about the cause of humanity, I care about my cause


Yes you can, you slobbering retard. Are you doing something you don't want to and makes you unhappy or works against your interests, in order to defend or uphold an abstraction? Then you're spooked.

No, but knowing that people will beat you to death if you go around raping and murdering does.

Why is something good if it doesn't feel good?
We interact with the world through our senses, and it is through our senses that we come to reason. Why would you put an abstraction that only lives in the words of others ahead of your own eyes and ears?

I know egoists, and they're nice people. This is because you don't need spooks to be nice or deal with people in a fair way. You can still be nice & fair because A) it feels good to do good and be liked and B) if you're a two-timing scumbag who tramples over others you're going to be a fucking pariah and an outcast, which doesn't feel good.

Humans are altruistic and social by nature. It's aberrant systems like capitalism and the culture of spooks that overrides this nature and forces them to kill and maim and torture each other for the sake of "integrity", "morality" and "honour." If that's what these things look like, I want no part of them.

He was blonde and blue-eyed fam.

You've only concluded stirnerism is 'inhuman' because you have elevated the concept of 'humanity' to such a spiritual level it approaches religiosity.


You are following stirners definition of self-interest, that you agree with it doesn't change this.

That's not what I meant with inhuman.

There is no intrinsic difference between a spooked interest and a pure interest. All words are indeed abstractions, this doesn't invalidate them in any sense, otherwise, the same would be true for ego and self-interest.

Then the only limit is what you can get away it.

Because the fact that we have senses and reason doesn't lead to the conclusion that language not being private means that what good is no more than what gives us pleasure.

That what you call spooks are part of our nature as much our desire to help. The separation is artificial and phony.

If someone has no honor, integrity or loyalty, they're simply scum. I know such people too, they're not nice.

No, I mean inhuman in the sense of it being alien to the very humanity it claims to bring back to it's state of pure, unspooked, humanity.

What other definition of self-interest exist, stirners doesnt make up the definition, he understands it?

But again, what humanity is this you are talking about, stirner makes the argument against the humanity being selfish, hence why he can become the egoist

A definition that doesn't take the self as a purely emotional seeker of happy points, your definition of self interest relies on your conception of self.

THumanity as it actually exists and not the theoretical humanity of the spook-free union of egoist world.

Which is why Stirner calls the self a "creative nothing" - he doesn't wish to define it.

that's the whole point, we're saying there is no "should"
"ought" and "should" are the spooks at the root of why things like "Honor" or "Nation" is spooky

What? Where does stirner defines the self as such?

Stirners says language cannot be fully expressed by language

The man is distinguished from the youth by the fact that he takes the world as it is, instead of everywhere fancying it amiss and wanting to improve it, model it after his ideal; in him the view that one must deal with the world according to his interest, not according to his ideals, becomes confirmed.

this is why only the ego is our concern as is the only thing that we can control


This is debatable. I find beastiality wrong but you fuckers would probably fuck a donkey and find it okay.

nah, i'm not interested in fucking your mother

There is literally nothing wrong with fucking donkeys

Amoral =/= immoral


boy that never gets old does it…

if race is proved to be a biological reality it is not a spook. You are using spook as a buzzword not as sterner intended

race is proved to be bullshit

it's as spooky now as it ever was


Race in stormfag terms doesn't even make sense from a scientific perspective. It falsely implies that genetic variation in humans doesn't exist, or is negligible, among people of a given race, which is nonsense.

Homogenous groups of humans do not exist, nor have they ever existed. To state otherwise is completely ahistorical.