Egoism is literally a developmental stage that toddlers go through turned into a political philosophy...

Egoism is literally a developmental stage that toddlers go through turned into a political philosophy. During the terrible twos a child's own ego has just formed but they can not yet conceptualize other people. They have no empathy or concept of other people's desires, pain or self preservation. But you don't have the innocence of a child. You can conceive of other people's ego but you don't care I suppose. You're beneath toddlers.

Other urls found in this thread:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics

why don't you actually read Stirner, that's not his conception of the ego at all.

...

What if shooting you in the chest and fucking the bullet hole makes me happy?

that'd make you a sociopath. most people wouldn't like you doing that to their property.

Try it, fam.
What's stopping you?

You can.
But what if someone else is also made happy and does it to you?

What you don't understand is the same as "we cannot all be equal, duh"!

OFCOURSE you're not gonna eat my pudding, cause you don't want me to eat your pudding. BUT, what if you have no pudding?

I am not gonna take the things you need to live, so you don't take mine. But what about the bourgies that do take them and let us live with less? Is it not in the self interest of the majority to take them?

(And I haven't even read the ego)

That's the great thing about Stirner.
It weeds out the sociopaths from people who care enough about others not to murder them over trivial shit.

not every stinerite is an idiot.

i'll make use of this thread to post more spookbuster quotes.

" But what would you think if one answered you by saying: “That one is to listen to God, conscience, duties, laws, and so forth, is flim-flam with which people have stuffed your head and heart and made you crazy”? And if he asked you how it is that you know so surely that the voice of nature is a seducer? And if he even demanded of you to turn the thing about and actually to deem the voice of God and conscience to be the devil’s work? There are such graceless men; how will you settle them? You cannot appeal to your parsons, parents, and good men, for precisely these are designated by them as your seducers, as the true seducers and corrupters of youth, who busily sow broadcast the tares of self-contempt and reverence to God, who fill young hearts with mud and young heads with stupidity.

But now those people go on and ask: For whose sake do you care about God’s and the other commandments? You surely do not suppose that this is done merely out of complaisance toward God? No, you are doing it — for your sake again. — Here too, therefore, you are the main thing, and each must say to himself, I am everything to myself and I do everything on my account. If it ever became clear to you that God, the commandments, etc., only harm you, that they reduce and ruin you, to a certainty you would throw them from you just as the Christians once condemned Apollo or Minerva or heathen morality. They did indeed put in the place of these Christ and afterward Mary, as well as a Christian morality; but they did this for the sake of their souls’ welfare too, therefore out of egoism or ownness.

And it was by this egoism, this ownness, that they got rid of the old world of gods and became free from it. Ownness created a new freedom; for ownness is the creator of everything, as genius (a definite ownness), which is always originality, has for a long time already been looked upon as the creator of new productions that have a place in the history of the world. "

that's a spook.

I have plenty of pudding and I'm taking all of the pudding because I want all of the pudding and I'll fucking kill you if you get in my way because I care nothing for your well being.

I don't have a problem with Stirner. I have a problem with stirnerfags that just call everything a spook.
Stirnerfags are very dangerous people.

AGAIN, OK! But what if we kill you first?
Are you ok with risking your life and your long term relations with the rest of us, only to have all the pudding?

If you are, ok. Time to gulag.

Explain how.
This is the part where I get to watch you stumble and trip over yourself, because you don't really know what that word means.

...

It isn't. He's a retard. If he has the might to keep it as his property, then it is his.

" If your efforts are ever to make “freedom” the issue, then exhaust freedom’s demands. Who is it that is to become free? You, I, we. Free from what? From everything that is not you, not I, not we. I, therefore, am the kernel that is to be delivered from all wrappings and — freed from all cramping shells. What is left when I have been freed from everything that is not I? Only I; nothing but I. But freedom has nothing to offer to this I himself. As to what is now to happen further after I have become free, freedom is silent — as our governments, when the prisoner’s time is up, merely let him go, thrusting him out into abandonment.

Now why, if freedom is striven after for love of the I after all — why not choose the I himself as beginning, middle, and end? Am I not worth more than freedom? Is it not I that make myself free, am not I the first? Even unfree, even laid in a thousand fetters, I yet am; and I am not, like freedom, extant only in the future and in hopes, but even as the most abject of slaves I am — present.

Think that over well, and decide whether you will place on your banner the dream of “freedom” or the resolution of “egoism,” of “ownness.” “Freedom” awakens your rage against everything that is not you; “egoism” calls you to joy over yourselves, to self-enjoyment; “freedom” is and remains a longing , a romantic plaint, a Christian hope for unearthliness and futurity; “ownness” is a reality, which of itself removes just so much unfreedom as by barring your own way hinders you. What does not disturb you, you will not want to renounce; and, if it begins to disturb you, why, you know that “you must obey yourselves rather than men!”

Freedom teaches only: Get yourselves rid, relieve yourselves, of everything burdensome; it does not teach you who you yourselves are. Rid, rid! So call, get rid even of yourselves, “deny yourselves.” But ownness calls you back to yourselves, it says “Come to yourself!” Under the aegis of freedom you get rid of many kinds of things, but something new pinches you again: “you are rid of the Evil One; evil is left.”[53] As own you are really rid of everything, and what clings to you you have accepted; it is your choice and your pleasure. The own man is the free-born, the man free to begin with; the free man, on the contrary, is only the eleutheromaniac, the dreamer and enthusiast.

The former is originally free, because he recognizes nothing but himself; he does not need to free himself first, because at the start he rejects everything outside himself, because he prizes nothing more than himself, rates nothing higher, because, in short, he starts from himself and “comes to himself.” Constrained by childish respect, he is nevertheless already working at “freeing” himself from this constraint. Ownness works in the little egoist, and procures him the desired — freedom.

Thousands of years of civilization have obscured to you what you are, have made you believe you are not egoists but are called to be idealists (“good men”). Shake that off! Do not seek for freedom, which does precisely deprive you of yourselves, in “self-denial”; but seek for yourselves, become egoists, become each of you an almighty ego. Or, more clearly: Just recognize yourselves again, just recognize what you really are, and let go your hypocritical endeavors, your foolish mania to be something else than you are. Hypocritical I call them because you have yet remained egoists all these thousands of years, but sleeping, self-deceiving, crazy egoists, you Heautontimorumenoses, you self- tormentors. Never yet has a religion been able to dispense with “promises,” whether they referred us to the other world or to this (“long life,” etc.); for man is mercenary and does nothing “gratis.” But how about that “doing the good for the good’s sake” without prospect of reward? As if here too the pay was not contained in the satisfaction that it is to afford. Even religion, therefore, is founded on our egoism and — exploits it; calculated for our desires, it stifles many others for the sake of one. This then gives the phenomenon of cheated egoism, where I satisfy, not myself, but one of my desires, e.g. the impulse toward blessedness. Religion promises me the — “supreme good”; to gain this I no longer regard any other of my desires, and do not slake them. — All your doings are unconfessed , secret, covert, and concealed egoism. But because they are egoism that you are unwilling to confess to yourselves, that you keep secret from yourselves, hence not manifest and public egoism, consequently unconscious egoism — therefore they are not egoism, but thraldom, service, self-renunciation; you are egoists, and you are not, since you renounce egoism. Where you seem most to be such, you have drawn upon the word “egoist” — loathing and contempt. "

Property rights are a spook, in reality it only matters if you can enforce them.

Have you ever heard of the concept called the "Union of Egoists?"

"I secure my freedom with regard to the world in the degree that I make the world my own, i.e. “gain it and take possession of it” for myself, by whatever might, by that of persuasion, of petition, of categorical demand, yes, even by hypocrisy, cheating, etc.; for the means that I use for it are determined by what I am. If I am weak, I have only weak means, like the aforesaid, which yet are good enough for a considerable part of the world. Besides, cheating, hypocrisy, lying, look worse than they are. Who has not cheated the police, the law? Who has not quickly taken on an air of honourable loyalty before the sheriff’s officer who meets him, in order to conceal an illegality that may have been committed, etc.? He who has not done it has simply let violence be done to him; he was a weakling from — conscience. I know that my freedom is diminished even by my not being able to carry out my will on another object, be this other something without will, like a rock, or something with will, like a government, an individual; I deny my ownness when — in presence of another — I give myself up, i.e. give way, desist, submit; therefore by loyalty, submission. For it is one thing when I give up my previous course because it does not lead to the goal, and therefore turn out of a wrong road; it is another when I yield myself a prisoner. I get around a rock that stands in my way, till I have powder enough to blast it; I get around the laws of a people, till I have gathered strength to overthrow them. Because I cannot grasp the moon, is it therefore to be “sacred” to me, an Astarte? If I only could grasp you, I surely would, and, if I only find a means to get up to you, you shall not frighten me! You inapprehensible one, you shall remain inapprehensible to me only till I have acquired the might for apprehension and call you my own; I do not give myself up before you, but only bide my time. Even if for the present I put up with my inability to touch you, I yet remember it against you.

Vigorous men have always done so. When the “loyal” had exalted an unsubdued power to be their master and had adored it, when they had demanded adoration from all, then there came some such son of nature who would not loyally submit, and drove the adored power from its inaccessible Olympus. He cried his “Stand still” to the rolling sun, and made the earth go round; the loyal had to make the best of it; he laid his axe to the sacred oaks, and the “loyal” were astonished that no heavenly fire consumed him; he threw the pope off Peter’s chair, and the “loyal” had no way to hinder it; he is tearing down the divine-right business, and the “loyal” croak in vain, and at last are silent.

My freedom becomes complete only when it is my — might; but by this I cease to be a merely free man, and become an own man. Why is the freedom of the peoples a “hollow word”? Because the peoples have no might! With a breath of the living ego I blow peoples over, be it the breath of a Nero, a Chinese emperor, or a poor writer. Why is it that the G… [54] legislatures pine in vain for freedom, and are lectured for it by the cabinet ministers? Because they are not of the “mighty”! Might is a fine thing, and useful for many purposes; for “one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right.” You long for freedom? You fools! If you took might, freedom would come of itself. See, he who has might “stands above the law.” How does this prospect taste to you, you “law-abiding” people? But you have no taste!

The cry for “freedom” rings loudly all around. But is it felt and known what a donated or chartered freedom must mean? It is not recognized in the full amplitude of the word that all freedom is essentially — self-liberation — i.e. that I can have only so much freedom as I procure for myself by my ownness. Of what use is it to sheep that no one abridges their freedom of speech? They stick to bleating. Give one who is inwardly a Mohammedan, a Jew, or a Christian, permission to speak what he likes: he will yet utter only narrow-minded stuff. If, on the contrary, certain others rob you of the freedom of speaking and hearing, they know quite rightly wherein lies their temporary advantage, as you would perhaps be able to say and hear something whereby those “certain” persons would lose their credit.

If they nevertheless give you freedom, they are simply knaves who give more than they have. For then they give you nothing of their own, but stolen wares: they give you your own freedom, the freedom that you must take for yourselves; and they give it to you only that you may not take it and call the thieves and cheats to an account to boot. In their slyness they know well that given (chartered) freedom is no freedom, since only the freedom one takes for himself, therefore the egoist’s freedom, rides with full sails. Donated freedom strikes its sails as soon as there comes a storm — or calm; it requires always a — gentle and moderate breeze. "

Who is talking about property rights?

The entire point of egoism as a philosophy is to convince others to be concerned with their own desires, pain and self-preservation instead of being distracted by things that don't help them–otherwise known as spooks.

Stirnerism is a fucking meme but come on m8

t. Reddit moron

All these anally furious retards who don't understand Stirner, make me think he may have had a point, though.

Fuck off, read this, and don't come back until you know what you are talking about:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics

(And if anyone wants to be a good little Stirnerite, read this and the Ego and His Own at minimum so you don't come off as an illiterate retard with a meme understanding of philosophy)

that isn't what a spook is, a spook is just an idea that has become fixed. law, morality, etc.

keep being spooked buddy.

fuck off namefag

...

Protip: Either drop the name and keep the flag or add a trip by adding "#password" after you name - without the quotations and your password of choice. People will be salty at just the flag but have little recourse for bitching since we have other posters who basically single themselves out with rarer flags, but people are generally friendlier to them. If you go down the trip route people will be permanently hostile and plenty will stop responding.

Hurr durr I seriously can't stop mongling cocks and slurping semen. It's so yummy yummy to me!

(OC)

I'd talk about Stirner with you, whats your favorite thing about our saviour, the milkman?

no thanks I actually kinda like bitching at spookedfags now that I think about it.

It all makes sense now.

stfu racist. reported.

Why did Marx hate Stirner?

I feel like they fit together very well. Did Marx think it was necessary for one to identify as a non-individual part of the greater working masses to achieve revolution? To sacrifice his own wants and needs for the good of the collective?

because he was jealous of all of the schoolgirl pussy that Stirner was getting at when he was working as a teacher at a girl's school.

Marx had something of a humanist streak till his later years.
I don't think he was even proud of his critique, since it wasn't published till after his death. I feel like Marxist jumped on the bandwagon without having read Stirner, and hated him ever since. I rally do believe they are less at odds than people think.

kek stirner was a gaylord

It was the young man who was only concerned with themselves, not the child. Have you even read Stirner?

Marx was working on some gay-ass book that he had to throw out because Stirner completely destroyed everything it was based on.

...

Yeah, they stand at the corner of the street and stare at you spookily

You can't have concept of other people's desires, pain or self preservation if you do not develop your own egoist concept of these.