I notice Holla Forums likes stirner for his enlightment spook busting. Why then...

I notice Holla Forums likes stirner for his enlightment spook busting. Why then, is it so enamored with the enlightment's most slimey ectoplasm, the jacobines?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=azKNngXBICs
youtube.com/watch?v=091QWaDP4GI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because they guillotined the first and second estates.

youtube.com/watch?v=azKNngXBICs
youtube.com/watch?v=091QWaDP4GI

The cult of reason, the slaughter motivated by the most autistic, one-dimensionial interpretation of liberal spook worship, the sacrifice for their holy ideals…

How can one be a spookbusting stirnerite and support the very people he targeted with his criticism of leftism?

Because they killed people I don't like.
This is pretty straightforward.

the aristocrats needed to die tho

Death as the ultimate arbiter, fair enough.


With the result being that France is the most aristocratic country in Europe.

It's a dialectical movement. First the death of kings and God, then the death of "the people" and Man.

History itself as a death spiral…

This board is a death cult.

He said the aristocrats had to die. Didn't say anything about new ones popping up.

i like how woke chapofags talk shit about stalinists but they name themselves after a guy whose only political program seems to have been chopping off heads. The irony doesnt stop there though, they never actually end up talking about chopping off some heads, god knows a lot of peeps deserve it, they just start babbling about some identitarian nonsense

Fact of the matter is all these sects are shortsighted and autistic, real ass nigs that arent too high on the spectrum are first and foremost two things:

pragmatists, and on some level dirigists

Radical leftism is obsessively neurotic. "Off with their heads!"

Do you have a point, or are you just going to whine and whine?

" The historical reflections on our Mongolism which I propose to insert episodically at this place are not given with the claim of thoroughness, or even of approved soundness, but solely because it seems to me that they may contribute toward making the rest clear."

" The history of the world, whose shaping properly belongs altogether to the Caucasian race, seems until now to have run through two Caucasian ages, in the first of which we had to work out and work off our innate negroidity; this was followed in the second by Mongoloidity (Chineseness), which must likewise be terribly made an end of. Negroidity represents antiquity, the time of dependence on things (on cocks’ eating, birds’ flight, on sneezing, on thunder and lightning, on the rustling of sacred trees, and so forth); Mongoloidity the time of dependence on thoughts, the Christian time. Reserved for the future are the words, “I am the owner of the world of things, I am the owner of the world of mind.”

Only /ourguy/ could say that the shaping of history belongs to the Caucasian race. He's a national anarchist

...

" Communism, which assumes that men “have equal rights by nature,” contradicts its own proposition until it comes to this, that men have no right at all by nature. For it is not willing to recognize, for instance, that parents have “by nature” rights as against their children, or the children as against the parents: it abolishes the family. Nature gives parents, brothers, and so on, no right at all. Altogether, this entire revolutionary or Babouvist principle rests on a religious, that is, false, view of things. Who can ask after “right” if he does not occupy the religious stand-point himself? Is not “right” a religious concept, something sacred? Why, “equality of rights,” as the Revolution propounded it, is only another name for “Christian equality,” the “equality of the brethren,” “of God’s children,” “of Christians”; in short, fraternité. Each and every inquiry after right deserves to be lashed with Schiller’s words"

" Weitling lays crime at the door of “social disorder,” and lives in the expectation that under Communistic arrangements crimes will become impossible, because the temptations to them, such as money, fall away. As, however, his organized society is also exalted into a sacred and inviolable one, he miscalculates in that good-hearted opinion. Such as with their mouth professed allegiance to the Communistic society, but worked underhand for its ruin, would not be lacking. "

" If community is once a need of man, and he finds himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, because it has become his principle, it prescribes to him its laws too, the laws of – society. The principle of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as such – lawgiver. Communism gives this principle the strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society, for, as Feuerbach rightly says, although he does not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man; that is, the essence of society or of societary (Communistic) man. All religion is a cult of society, this principle by which societary (cultivated) man is dominated; neither is any god an ego’s exclusive god, but always a society’s or community’s, be it of the society, “family” (Lar, Penates) or of a “people” (“national god”) or of “all men” (“he is a Father of all men”).

Consequently one has a prospect of extirpating religion down to the ground only when one antiquates society and everything that flows from this principle. But it is precisely in Communism that this principle seeks to culminate, as in it everything is to become common for the establishment of – “equality.” If this “equality” is won, “liberty” too is not lacking. But whose liberty? Society’s ! Society is then all in all, and men are only “for each other.” It would be the glory of the – love-state [Liebesstaat]."

lel communists are spooked retards

" According to the Communists’ opinion the commune should be proprietor. On the contrary, I am proprietor, and I only come to an understanding with others about my property. If the commune does not do what suits me, I rise against it and defend my property. I am proprietor, but property is not sacred. I should be merely possessor? No, hitherto one was only possessor, secured in the possession of a parcel by leaving others also in possession of a parcel; but now everything belongs to me, I am proprietor of everything that I require and can get possession of. If it is said socialistically, society gives me what I require – then the egoist says, I take what I require. If the Communists conduct themselves as ragamuffins, the egoist behaves as proprietor."

clearly might makes right

Dude come on.

Stirner is shit, the people who use the spook meme are probably just shitposter. Only some philosophical illiterate idiot can actually like stirner,

this is an honest and solid defense of a man who basically just did what had to be done and was long overdo

Stirner was an individualist anarchist not a reactionary and not a fucking faggot commie

He described himself as a communist, but in this weird egotistic way. Don't remember the text or post someone mentioned this.

spooked beyond ==BELIEF==

Never directly, but here's the section I believe.

"Of course, in competition everyone stands alone; but if competition disappeared because people see that cooperation is more useful than isolation, wouldn’t everyone still be an egoist in association and seek his own advantage? Someone will object that one seeks it at the expense of others. But one won’t seek it at the expense of others, because others no longer want to be such fools as to let anyone live at their expense.

But “the egoist is someone who thinks only of himself!” — This would be someone who doesn’t know and relish all the joys that come from participation with others, i.e., from thinking of others as well, someone who lack countless pleasures — thus a poor sort. But why should this desolate loner be an egoist in comparison to richer sorts? Certainly, for a long time, we were able to get used to considering poverty a disgrace, as a crime, and the sacred socialists have clearly proven that the poor are treated like a criminals. But sacred socialists treat those who are in their eyes contemptibly poor in this way, just as much as the bourgeoisie do it to their poor.

But why should the person who is poorer with respect to a certain interest be called more egoistic than the one who possesses that interest? Is the oyster more egoistic that the dog; is the Moor more egoistic than the German; is the poor, scorned, Jewish junkman more egoistic than the enthusiastic socialist; is the vandal who destroys artworks for which he feels nothing more egoistic than the art connoisseur who treats the same works with great love and care because he has a feeling and interest for them? And now if someone — we leave it open whether such a one can be shown to exist — doesn’t find any “human” interest in human beings, if he doesn’t know how to appreciate them as human beings, wouldn’t he be a poorer egoist with regard to this interest rather than being, as the enemies of egoism claim, a model of egoism? One who loves a human being is richer, thanks to this love, than another who doesn’t love anyone. But there is no distinction between egoism and non-egoism in this at all, because both are only pursuing their own interest.

But everyone should have an interest in human beings, love for human beings!

But see how far you get with this “should,” with this law of love. For two millennia this commandment has been led people by the heart, and still today, socialists complain that our proletarians get treated with less love than the slaves of the ancients, and yet these same socialists still raise their voices quite loudly in favor of this — law of love.

If you want people to take an interest in you, draw it out of them and don’t remain uninteresting sacred beings holding out your sacred humanity like a sacred robe and crying like beggars: “Respect our humanity, that is sacred!”

Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.

The “exclusiveness” of the egoist, which some want to pass off as isolation, separation, loneliness, is on the contrary full participation in the interesting by — exclusion of the uninteresting.

No one gives Stirner credit for his global intercourse and his union of egoists from the largest section of his book, “My Intercourse.” "

It's almost like there are different people with different views in one place… woh

Sometimes I forget how good zlazloj is

I think you got the wrong impression altogether.