Stirnerposting is a Cult

Think about it, there is something ritualistic about it.
Taking the stirner image.
Dragging it into the post.
Commenting something about spooks.
It is an incantation.
Stirnerposting is a Cult.
Wake up spookle.

Check your spooks, kiddo.

Spooks are a spook.

cults are spooky


yes, it's a ritual to exorcise spooks from the possessed.

spooks, spooks, spooks
none of you are free from spooks

sounds pretty spooky, spook

do someone here have the "good night sleep well"

stirner and nietzche should be reversed since the latter was influenced by the former

make that urself m8

No. Nietzsche probably never read Stirner. Hegel should be mary, while Nietzsche is the frontmost lamb. Marx with a disgusted look should be the cow.

W R O N G

De Maistre was a spookbuster though.

All I can find is that Nietzsche knew of Stirner's existence. Can't find anything indicating that Nietzsche read The Ego and His Own. It all boils down to speculation.

He didn't cite him, but their ideas are way too similar for him to have had no influence. It could be the very unlikely occurrence of two 19th century German philosophers having remarkably similar ideas, but no cross pollination.

This is the reincarnation of stirner.

Juan Posadas?

No… Jimmy Savile

But this is Jimmy Savile.

He even looks like stirner; blond hair, ugly fiendish face, cigar smoking, working at girls schools..

I feel that their styles and conclusions differ too much from each other. Stirner is more useful and uplifting as a personal philosophy. It encourages you to free yourself from your chains. Nietzsche, however, seems to advocate for a different set of chains. Even if yourself are the one to create them.

Stirner was one-dimensional and restrictive, offering no positive answer. Nietzsche shared his starting point but took a totally different angle.

No, Foucault was. He sure gave Chomsky the heebee-jeebees.

well he was pretty based.

Was he, dare I say it, /our guy/?

yeah, just except for all that kid-fucking stuff

why do SJW:s like Foucault so much, then

just seems ridiculous for the ulta-moralists to like some nihilist/relativist

He was a genius, he knew how power worked, that there are no systems, no order apart from might and influence. He knew more about the world seen through the spooky fog than stirner ever did, without any philosophical background whatsoever.

Don't say that, the AnComs will come and defend him.

I have found that without fail, all individualist ideologies are quite cultish.
Whether the subject of worship is the free market, a person, nature or worst of all, the self; Worship and even ritualistic elements are always quite evident.

I don't think this egoism garbage has any more a place on this board then Scientology does.

It's the Randian paradox: to become an unrestrained individual, one must follow a philosophy to the letter.

When nothing is required, all is forbidden..

because he was a sexual deviant who advocated hypersexuality and hyperpromiscuity, both central to sjw ideology

actually he was /Thatchers guy/, but a part from that, certainly.


kidfucking, how ever terrible trough our eyes, is certainly despooked.

...

if that's true then they're very quiet about it

Children are lumpenproletariat anyway.

not really, the line from "looking at me the wrong way is harassment" to "public displays of sex are disgusting" isn't a long one. sexual jokes are already considered sexist 99% of the time, unless they'e literally "hehe I want to shove this up my butt" (more wc humour than sex humour)

micro-aggressions come from foucault too

also look at all the asexual advocacy stuff

it is basically "most of the time, talking about sexuality isn't inclusive"

i disagree. i don't see feminists advocating for people, especially women, to have less sex or apply more restrictions to the sex they have

the general message is "women should fuck more men (especially black men), in more ways, and abandon monogamy. sex has no rules"

well, some of them kinda advocate for people to not have sex when even remotely drunk because of the consent-when-drunk issue.

but yea otherwise they don't want restrictions, but it is going in the direction where sex shouldn't be very public - because their inclusiveness basically means throwing non-inclusive things out into privacy, and sex talk is very hard to do in a totally correct way.

in addition to this, they often find fantasies excellent. something like 50 shades of grey is bad to them because it is a sexual/romantic fantasy rather than a safe sex manual.

I call it sex-negativeness when they want to hide sex and make sexual fantasies "safe" or correct.

kek. yes.