Hermits, Lone Wolves, and the Asocial as Egoist Anarchist

Hey Holla Forums since Eusocial/Hive Mind animals like ants, bees, and termites are essentially NazBols in the animal kingdom, is it safe to say that lone wolf animals (who don't form any social bonds for most of their existence like some spiders), the hermits, and misanthropic asocial people are the embodiment of Max Stirner's Egoist Anarchism?

...

Fuck egoism, eusocial humanity when?

Holy kek that vid

Lone wolves die off easily and are often weak

Citation needed.

God-tier: Collectivism vs. Individualism is a false dichotomy.

OK tier: Collectivism

Shit tier: Individualism

Lone wolf meme is bullshit, wolfes are just like dogs, they're the purest of cucksocial animals ever.

If anything cats are much better representation of Egoist Anarchism. They were never tamed you know, they just graciously allow us to provide them with food for the value of their benevolent coexistence.

...

That sounds so christian

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Imma visit 4/pol/ right now to gobble up on that wisdom.

no
everything in that post is retarded
but that spiders are conscious egoists is maybe the worst, and Stirner wanted a union of egoists, I don't see how that in any way would be embodied by misanthropic hermits.

What would an ant be on its own? A bee? A termite? A man?

It's a cornerstone of leftism lel

Only individual can have such a thing a self interest, though.

It is the only non-spooked answer friend

why can't collective interests overlap with self-interest?

But no.

No, not at all. Egoism isnt some asocial lone wolf kind of bullshit. Its a reminder of one's own status as the unique and the presence of fixed ideas.
Stirner does not make a case against community, love or friendship or anything that specific.
If you wanted to boil down the egoist position on something in particular keep this rule in handy:

Not against __ but sacred __.

That is to say, the ego need not discard any idea, but rather can feel free to use any idea as their property, if it so pleases them.

>Not against but sacred .
Ah fuck, formatting messed that up.
Let me correct it:
Not against X but sacred X.

Because collective self-interest is never equal to my own interest. There's the interest of the state, interest of the nation, of the people, of the workers, but it never becomes truly the interest of an I.

Not all collectives are equally as alienating. The union of egoists as described by Stirner is a collective group made up of individuals in order to promote individual self interest.
advancing the interests of the union of egoists would mean advancing the interests of the individual and the collective at the same time.

You will have a problem with out-stirnering me, as I am in the middle of re-reading it. On the contrary you seem to be misunderstanding the concept of union of egoists. It only makes sense as a concept becuase the collective self-interest never overshadows the individual self-interest. Therefore Union of Egoists has no interest of it's own and exist only as a tool for advancement of interests of it's individual members.

I don't disagree with that at all. But individuals on their own don't have the power to achieve everything they want. Hence why a union of egoists is necessary. This is why individuals vs collectives is a false dichotomy.

Individuals OWN the union, therefore they own the power it brings. I know what you're meaning, I just took notice of the dialectical problem that comes from using the term collective self-interest.