How the fuck are Stirner fags leftists...

1. Yes, it is a meme
2. How the fuck do MLs fit in here? everybody hates tankies except for tankies
3. Stirner was a buddy of Marx and Engels and is seen as one of the roots of the anarchist movements. The reason you think he is not a leftist is because of the memes here, where Egoist anarchism is depicted as a pathological parody. In reality Stirner advocated for the proletariat coming together and revolting, precisely because he saw it in their best interest to do so

stirner fit whatever ideology benefits him the most

sometimes he is a mutualism, sometime he is an anarcho syndicalist, etc.

i think his ideas are pretty close to mutualism

...

I really think anyone pushing Stirner shit is COINTELPRO or just Holla Forums shitting up the place.

They claim to unironically believe the absurd shit that anarchists have to explain away to normies.

SPOOKS!

Its pure fucking cancer.

I oppose chopping up children for the sake of the children in my life, an egoist still has empathy you know

I know you are but what am I?

Are you shure he wasnt Engels?

It's a /lit/ meme that got way out of hand with shitposters

Stirnerists aim to keep a constant check of their autonomy seeking to remove anything that reduces their sense of Ownness. The aim isn't self interest, but is a byproduct of Ownness itself.

This is like asking "How are Hegelians leftists? Hegel wasn't even a communist!" Except, in this case, Hegel thinks the workers should seize the means of production. It's entirely possible for your leftism to be informed by self-interest, and that the leftism of your comrades also be informed by self-interest.

Stirner faggots are leftists because Stirner is actually the alter-ego of Engels
The man himself never existed it was all made up by Engels

Even the parts where Marx and Stirner "argued" it was actually a subconscious part of Engels that didn't agree with everything Marx said

I want this forced meme to die

not a meme when it's true

Holy shit. Stirner is a spook.

Obvious bait n troll but I'm applying for food stamps and have a minute

Stirner never claimed to be anything other than himself. Anarchists tend to adhere to similar principles, but as themselves. Only Stirner is Stirner. I get to be who I am, myself.

Fuck off man with your not getting it ass. This is the logic of a toddler.

What is the difference between yes and no, if yes is 100% and no is 0%? In every instant there are possibilities before me, and I have the freedom to choose 51% over 49%.

Let every man decide for himself what is true, and let him live in dignity and don't limit his freedom.

Your particular spook is that of TINA, that there's no alternative to the world we've been given, and that anything other than what you're comfortable with in your well adjusted moral sphere is just a complete void. You probably love watching mad Max, the Hunger Games and whatever else dystopian future, because you can't fathom something positive in the stead of the world we have. You may or may not be a Christian, but you're spooked about moral choices that are garunteed from up high, rather than from your own self.

I'm pretty sure its really fucking childish to think everyone can go around doing whatever anti-social behavior they want. It reflects the inability to conceptualize the existence of other people. You know that phase two year olds go through called the "terrible twos?" You've literally turned that into a political ideology.

This

Shut up faggot

well, strictly speaking, they /can/. And many people do.

Just fucking read it dumbass Stirner rebukes this several times.

wtf I'm with her now

MLs are fags

...

Yes

Egoism is a personal philosophy, it sets the sole individual on a level higher than all others; just because I am free to do whatever I want doesn't mean I want the same to be true of others. Others can live or burn, and I care about some of them. But I don't hold them to an external standard. Get off your moral high horse, faggot.

They're not leftists. They're closer to ancaps than anything else. They shouldn't be tolerated on this board but "muh memes xDD."

'no'

Just admit you've never read Stirnet, we'll understand

Beyond retarded

holy shit, this actually makes sense
i secretly prefer some of engels' work to marx and think he is seriously underappreciated

OP said Stirner fags, not Stirner. You ought to talk to your fellow retards and tell them to stop acting like ancaps if you don't want your ideology associated with them

Are you one of those dumb M-L bootlicker cucks that belive anything but central planning is ancapism?

Read a fucking book faggot OP

...

someone is fucking SPOOKED

Meme ideology for shitty meme posters

Morality*

In childhood liberation takes the direction of trying to get to the bottom of things, to get at what is “back of” things; therefore we spy out the weak points of everybody, for which, it is well known, children have a sure instinct; therefore we like to smash things, like to rummage through hidden corners, pry after what is covered up or out of the way, and try what we can do with everything. When we once get at what is back of the things, we know we are safe; when, e.g., we have got at the fact that the rod is too weak against our obduracy, then we no longer fear it, “have out-grown it.”

Back of the rod, mightier than it, stands our — obduracy, our obdurate courage. By degrees we get at what is back of everything that was mysterious and uncanny to us, the mysteriously-dreaded might of the rod, the father’s stern look, etc., and back of all we find our ataraxia, i. e. imperturbability, intrepidity, our counter force, our odds of strength, our invincibility. Before that which formerly inspired in us fear and deference we no longer retreat shyly, but take courage. Back of everything we find our courage, our superiority; back of the sharp command of parents and authorities stands, after all, our courageous choice or our outwitting shrewdness. And the more we feel ourselves, the smaller appears that which before seemed invincible. And what is our trickery, shrewdness, courage, obduracy? What else but — mind![Geist. This word will be translated sometimes “mind” and sometimes “spirit” in the following pages]

Through a considerable time we are spared a fight that is so exhausting later — the fight against reason. The fairest part of childhood passes without the necessity of coming to blows with reason. We care nothing at all about it, do not meddle with it, admit no reason. We are not to be persuaded to anything by conviction, and are deaf to good arguments, principles, etc.; on the other hand, coaxing, punishment, etc. are hard for us to resist.

This stern life-and-death combat with reason enters later, and begins a new phase; in childhood we scamper about without racking our brains much.

Mind is the name of the first self-discovery, the first self-discovery, the first undeification of the divine; i. e., of the uncanny, the spooks, the “powers above.” Our fresh feeling of youth, this feeling of self, now defers to nothing; the world is discredited, for we are above it, we are mind.

Now for the first time we see that hitherto we have not looked at the world intelligently at all, but only stared at it.

We exercise the beginnings of our strength on natural powers. We defer to parents as a natural power; later we say: Father and mother are to be forsaken, all natural power to be counted as riven. They are vanquished. For the rational, i.e. the “intellectual” man, there is no family as a natural power; a renunciation of parents, brothers, etc., makes its appearance. If these are “born again” as intellectual, rational powers, they are no longer at all what they were before.

And not only parents, but men in general, are conquered by the young man; they are no hindrance to him, and are no longer regarded; for now he says: One must obey God rather than men.

From this high standpoint everything “earthly” recedes into contemptible remoteness; for the standpoint is — the heavenly.

The attitude is now altogether reversed; the youth takes up an intellectual position, while the boy, who did not yet feel himself as mind, grew up on mindless learning. The former does not try to get hold of things (e.g. to get into his head the data of history), but of the thoughts that lie hidden in things, and so, e.g., of the spirit of history. On the other hand, the boy understands connections no doubt, but not ideas, the spirit; therefore he strings together whatever can be learned, without proceeding a priori and theoretically, i.e. without looking for ideas.

As in childhood one had to overcome the resistance of the laws of the world, so now in everything that he proposes he is met by an objection of the mind, of reason, of his own conscience. “That is unreasonable, unchristian, unpatriotic,” etc., cries conscience to us, and — frightens us away from it. Not the might of the avenging Eumenides, not Poseidon’s wrath, not God, far as he sees the hidden, not the father’s rod of punishment, do we fear, but — conscience.

We “run after our thoughts” now, and follow their commands just as before we followed parental, human ones. Our course of action is determined by our thoughts (ideas, conceptions, faith) as it is in childhood by the commands of our parents.

For all that, we were already thinking when we were children, only our thoughts were not fleshless, abstract, absolute, i. e., NOTHING BUT THOUGHTS, a heaven in themselves, a pure world of thought, logical thoughts.

On the contrary, they had been only thoughts that we had about a thing; we thought of the thing so or so. Thus we may have thought “God made the world that we see there,” but we did not think of (“search”) the “depths of the Godhead itself”; we may have thought “that is the truth about the matter,” but we do not think of Truth itself, nor unite into one sentence “God is truth.” The “depths of the Godhead, who is truth,” we did not touch. Over such purely logical, i.e. theological questions, “What is truth?” Pilate does not stop, though he does not therefore hesitate to ascertain in an individual case “what truth there is in the thing,” i.e. whether the thing is true.

Any thought bound to a thing is not yet nothing but a thought, absolute thought.

To bring to light the pure thought, or to be of its party, is the delight of youth; and all the shapes of light in the world of thought, like truth, freedom, humanity, Man, etc., illumine and inspire the youthful soul.

But, when the spirit is recognized as the essential thing, it still makes a difference whether the spirit is poor or rich, and therefore one seeks to become rich in spirit; the spirit wants to spread out so as to found its empire — an empire that is not of this world, the world just conquered. Thus, then, it longs to become all in all to itself; i.e., although I am spirit, I am not yet perfected spirit, and must first seek the complete spirit.

But with that I, who had just now found myself as spirit, lose myself again at once, bowing before the complete spirit as one not my own but supernal, and feeling my emptiness.

Spirit is the essential point for everything, to be sure; but then is every spirit the “right” spirit? The right and true spirit is the ideal of spirit, the “Holy Spirit.” It is not my or your spirit, but just — an ideal, supernal one, it is “God.” “God is spirit.” And this supernal “Father in heaven gives it to those that pray to him.”[2]

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, i.e. 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.

So long as one knows himself only as spirit, and feels that all the value of his existence consists in being spirit (it becomes easy for the youth to give his life, the “bodily life,” for a nothing, for the silliest point of honor), so long it is only thoughts that one has, ideas that he hopes to be able to realize some day when he has found a sphere of action; thus one has meanwhile only ideals, unexecuted ideas or thoughts.

Not till one has fallen in love with his corporeal self, and takes a pleasure in himself as a living flesh-and-blood person — but it is in mature years, in the man, that we find it so — not till then has one a personal or egoistic interest, i.e. an interest not only of our spirit, e.g., but of total satisfaction, satisfaction of the whole chap, a selfish interest. Just compare a man with a youth, and see if he will not appear to you harder, less magnanimous, more selfish. Is he therefore worse? No, you say; he has only become more definite, or, as you also call it, more “practical.” But the main point is this, that he makes himself more the center than does the youth, who is infatuated about other things, e.g. God, fatherland, etc.

Therefore the man shows a second self-discovery. The youth found himself as spirit and lost himself again in the general spirit, the complete, holy spirit, Man, mankind — in short, all ideals; the man finds himself as embodied spirit.

Boys had only unintellectual interests (i.e. interests devoid of thoughts and ideas), youths only intellectual ones; the man has bodily, personal, egoistic interests.

If the child has not an object that it can occupy itself with, it feels ennui; for it does not yet know how to occupy itself with itself. The youth, on the contrary, throws the object aside, because for him thoughts arose out of the object; he occupies himself with his thoughts, his dreams, occupies himself intellectually, or “his mind is occupied.”

The young man includes everything not intellectual under the contemptuous name of “externalities.” If he nevertheless sticks to the most trivial externalities (e.g. the customs of students’ clubs and other formalities), it is because, and when, he discovers mind in them, i.e. when they are symbols to him.

As I find myself back of things, and that as mind, so I must later find myself also back of thoughts — to wit, as their creator and owner. In the time of spirits thoughts grew till they overtopped my head, whose offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and convulsed me like fever-phantasies — an awful power. The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, e.g. God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: “I alone am corporeal.” And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself.

If as spirit I had thrust away the world in the deepest contempt, so as owner I thrust spirits or ideas away into their “vanity.” They have no longer any power over me, as no “earthly might” has power over the spirit.

The child was realistic, taken up with the things of this world, till little by little he succeeded in getting at what was back of these very things; the youth was idealistic, inspired by thoughts, till he worked his way up to where he became the man, the egoistic man, who deals with things and thoughts according to his heart’s pleasure, and sets his personal interest above everything. Finally, the old man? When I become one, there will still be time enough to speak of that.

Stirnerfags aren't Leftists, they're just autists who confuse memes for reality

...

Daily reminder that Max Stirner by his own definition is a spook.

Spook spooky spook spook spooook

Fuck off retard

The problem with Stirner, and Egoists in general, is that they think rejecting ethics is an argument against ethics in and of itself. Which is actually why so many Leftists look like idiots when we debate Liberals and reactionaries, because we tend to not have a functional idea of ethics, so we look like infantile edgelords when we basically just say you should be allowed to do anything so long as you're a revolutionary, but that's not the way most people think, and it's certainly not the way people feel, but by understanding Ethics as a philosophy, instead of just rejecting it and ending up with the incoherent mess that Egoism is, we can arrive at a Leftist idea of ethics different from the liberal ethics of the Bourgeoise.

Also, ethics =/= morality, so don't even come at me with that meme or I will end you

Unironically this thread and the one on mutualism proves Marxism are jewish fascists working in favour of the Rotschilds

Are the Stirnerites on this board post-leftists? What does this board think of Bob Black?

It's past bedtime, Mikhail.

you're fucking spooked m8 you believe ghosts have an effect on egos. ffs stop being spooked

we're under attack, plz no bully joo man!!!

Egoism is a set of ethics you moron.

ROTHSCHILD DETECTED

Everything I Don't Like is a Spook: An Emotional Child's Guide to Political Discussion

It's a set of ethics insofar as a complete rejection of any coherent set of ethics is, in fact, a set of ethics. How does Egoism direct human action? By telling people to just do whatever's in their self-interests, and while I agree that all Leftist politics are, ultimately, an appeal to self-interests, nowhere near to the degree that a Union of Egoists suggests.

It is in my material and psychological self-interest to be ethical. It is in humanity's material and psychological self-interests to work together in Unions of Egoists. It is not in my material or psychological self-interest to obey a morality that does not serve me but instead forces me to serve it. It is not in humanity's material or psychological self-interest to group together under coercive systems to do not serve the humans part of it but force them to serve it.

Stay a slave, my property.

Fuck yourself.
spook, lad.

He's a fucking faggot.

Nowhere does Stirner say to follow self-interest. Read. The. Fucking, Book.

you got me fam, im really the third nephew of Jacob rothschild

spooked fag detected

You are literally what normies refer to, when they say "but muh human nature!"

Cool. Tell your fellow Stirnerite that then

Oh wow an-nil is a Holla Forumsack. I'm totally shocked by this.

A spook is literally defined in the book as anything that stops someone from perusing their own self-interests, anything that comes in the way of one's self. Now I realize that Stirner also argues that people are a basically allowed to act out of their self-interests so long as it's in their will to do so, but how can an ethical system this abstract, nebulous, and ill defined be of any use to anyone? Egoism is good for triggering reactionaries, but when put into practice, either as a theory or in real life, literally everything and anything can be a spook more or less.

Being triggered is a spook comrade :^)

Are you stupid? Anarchists were denouncing your semitic shitty fairy-tales long before Not Socialism was a thing

Knew it!

How domsleep knowing you have the blood of the proletariat in your hands?

If you don't watch yourself, I'm gonna get one of my Rothschild uncles to come stick his spooks up your ass :^)

That does not answer my question does it?

W-were n-n-not ancaps you sp-spooks!

*Autistic screeching*

The only question you asked was "Are you stupid?"

To which the answer is "It does not matter", for I have access to all the wealth of my Rothschild family at my fingertips. Stirnerite mass killings begins soon. :^)

OP is a spook

ITT people who are afraid of the fair critique of ideology and haven't actually understood Stirner. Stirner was a philosopher with different intentions than Marx. He never wanted to create a political ideology. So don't treat the ideas in The Ego and His Own as a political ideology. Read it and let his ideas create new ideas inside you. You can be a Marxist and agree with Stirner on many points. That is what philosophy is about. Aside from that if we look at his ideas. He calls out the ambitions and ideas of utopian socialists to be akin to ideals such as patriotism and religion. Because the utopians acted like zealots for the sake of creating socialism. The book can be compared to Zizek's critique of ideology. We are all eating from the trash can of ideology. We are however supposed to accept this fact and remain able to critique ourselves for doing so whenever it is necessary. The same way we should be able to free ourselves from the driving forces, which are nothing more than ideology/spooks when they aren't in line with our personal interest/the ego. You can then accept this fact and choose between going on, or decide if a different course of action might be more beneficial.

Stop using philosophy as a template for your lifestylism.

I suppose it's a classic combination.

There is nothing about egoism that opposes ethics. It opposes surbordination to them. An egoist will follow ethical principles because he autonomously decides to do so, not because they're axiomatically good courses of action.

That's because only an infantile edgelord would believe he should be allowed to do anything as long as he's [insert spooky ideology].

Curiously, it's the conscious egoists who tend to have a minimum empathy with other human beings preventing them from coming to such retarded conclusions.

Someone already pointed this out to you, but if you actually understood ethics as philosophy, you'd realize egoism fits right into the field.

Good shit comrade, good shit.

this