How do you know these things you call "spooks" (race, nationality, gender, etc.) are "spooks"?

How do you know these things you call "spooks" (race, nationality, gender, etc.) are "spooks"?

Because I say so.
Because they are not directly relevant to my rational self-interest.

Humane liberalism goes to work radically. If you want to be or have anything especial even in one point, if you want to retain for yourself even one prerogative above others, to claim even one right that is not a “general right of man,” you are an egoist.

Very good! I do not want to have or be anything especial above others, I do not want to claim any prerogative against them, but — I do not measure myself by others either, and do not want to have any right whatever. I want to be all and have all that I can be and have. Whether others are and have anything similar, what do I care? The equal, the same, they can neither be nor have. I cause no detriment to them, as I cause no detriment to the rock by being “ahead of it” in having motion. If they could have it, they would have it.

To cause other men no detriment is the point of the demand to possess no prerogative; to renounce all “being ahead,” the strictest theory of renunciation. One is not to count himself as “anything especial,” e.g. a Jew or a Christian. Well, I do not count myself as anything especial, but as unique.[“einzig”] Doubtless I have similarity with others; yet that holds good only for comparison or reflection; in fact I am incomparable, unique. My flesh is not their flesh, my mind is not their mind. If you bring them under the generalities “flesh, mind,” those are your thoughts, which have nothing to do with my flesh, my mind, and can least of all issue a “call” to mine.

I do not want to recognize or respect in you any thing, neither the proprietor nor the ragamuffin, nor even the man, but to use you. In salt I find that it makes food palatable to me, therefore I dissolve it; in the fish I recognize an aliment, therefore I eat it; in you I discover the gift of making my life agreeable, therefore I choose you as a companion. Or, in salt I study crystallization, in the fish animality, in you men, etc. But to me you are only what you are for me — to wit, my object; and, because my object, therefore my property.

Now the Nationals are exerting themselves to set up the abstract, lifeless unity of beehood; but the self-owned are going to fight for the unity willed by their own will, for union. This is the token of all reactionary wishes, that they want to set up something general, abstract, an empty, lifeless concept, in distinction from which the self-owned aspire to relieve the robust, lively particular from the trashy burden of generalities. The reactionaries would be glad to smite a people, a nation, forth from the earth; the self-owned have before their eyes only themselves. In essentials the two efforts that are just now the order of the day — to wit, the restoration of provincial rights and of the old tribal divisions (Franks, Bavarians, Lusatia, etc.), and the restoration of the entire nationality — coincide in one. But the Germans will come into unison, i.e. unite themselves, only when they knock over their beehood as well as all the beehives; in other words, when they are more than — Germans: only then can they form a “German Union.” They must not want to turn back into their nationality, into the womb, in order to be born again, but let every one turn in to himself. How ridiculously sentimental when one German grasps another’s hand and presses it with sacred awe because “he too is a German!” With that he is something great! But this will certainly still be thought touching as long as people are enthusiastic for “brotherliness,” i.e. as long as they have a “family disposition”. From the superstition of “piety,” from “brotherliness” or “childlikeness” or however else the soft-hearted piety-phrases run — from the family spirit — the Nationals, who want to have a great family of Germans, cannot liberate themselves.

Should I read Stirner?

I highly recommend him to people who are frequently anxious and/or maybe sometimes have difficulty standing up for themselves. For me it really helped me in being more confident and really believing in myself.

Ancap here, is Stirner a good start if I want to look into leftist ideas?

I'm big into natural rights and I heard he's not a fan so I want to read but I've read zero leftist books before.

If you don't want them to exist or they contradict your worldview, then they're spooks.

For example.
1 Believe that we're all equal

2 but blacks have lower Autism Levels than other races

3 therefore race doesn't exist and you're spooked.

This board is doomed.

Pol really are in full force today,

Nah, stirner's writing isn't an easy read. Start with something more modern, maybe Bookchin. The law of value vids on youtube is a decent introduction to a marxist critique of capitalism as well.




disappointed =/= triggered
Just ask your parents





Should I read the new translation? Are his other works worth reading too, and if yes, in what order?

I don't know about the others but nations were literally made up in Vienna 203 years ago

Read A critique of The German Ideology instead.


Because they belong to me, and I call them by whichever term I want.

If you're an ancap you should definitely read Stirner, Is retarded as stirner is a pretty easy decent read and bookchin is completely unrelated and don't waste your time with

I get it you are the Jewish supremacist then? Or do you somehow erase from your worldview that the Goyim has lower Autism Levels than other races?

What did Stirner mean by this?

I liked the newest translation I could find. (Will look for PDF later) It did a good job of footnoting lots of the word play and though it reduces the meme value, "phantasm" reads so much more nicely than "spook"

where's that other catboy stirner image

Here you go. quotes one of my favorite stirner passages, page 155 in attached PDF. "/I/ am no longer a pauper, but I have been one." -> HNNNG.

I think this is the image you're referencing.

Bookchin isn't unrelated to leftism you mong. Are you still butthurt from that debate thread we had? Striner's writing style tries too hard to be "aesthetic" and is ability to communicate his point suffers because of it. Also, the german ideology was a book that Marx and Engles knew wasn't good enough to print and thus never did

I'm gay for daddy Stirner

Agreed. I was once depressed, then I opened a milk store.

I fucking love milk. Whole milk all day every day.




Is race a spook? Genetic variation certainly exists between human geographic populations. The standard response seems to be to claim that the absence of hard cutoffs between the traditional groupings invalidates the concept entirely, which seems to ignore that speciation is generally recognised to function in a more diffuse manner than the downplaying of racial categorization in H. Sapiens acknowledges. Ring species, for example.



dude who the fuck cares like grow the fuck up lmao who is literally this autistic this is hardly a pressing important issue

Where are the arguments?

Are we reading the same post? I don't understand how that isn't bait.

This is the only acceptable answer, everything else is just a meme

Read Stirner's Critics

t. spooked cuck

spook was the best part though

because they're immaterial concepts super imposed over material analysis and rational self direction

Class is a spook. It's literally a social construct and a very vague and artificial one at that, one that denies people's lived experiences.

There is not much in common between a white working class man from West Virginia and a black prole from Chicago. Hell, sometimes the interests of fellow 'proletarians' are in opposition, such as native whites and immigrants. And that's without mentioning the working class of the third world, that has absolutely nothing in common with the first world proletarians.

Similarly, bourgeoisie doesn't mean anything. There is no council that agrees on how to best exploit proles. British aristocracy has nothing in common with the newly rich in China, and neither have anything in common with the robber barons of the middle east.

In short, class as a subject is a nebulous concept that doesn't tell us anything about a person. Refugees from Syria don't identify themselves as dispossesed proletarians ready to seize the means of production, but as Syrian, Muslims and Arabs. Rich hedge fund jews don't think of themselves as bourgeoisie, but as God's chosen people.

t. hasn't read stirner or marx

Stirner was a nihilistic faggot that would be one of edgy fedora kids that watches Rick and Morty and admires TheAmazingAtheist had he been born in our time.

Does that make his arguments wrong?

imagine being this retarded, it's amazing people like you can even remember to keep breathing.

Proletarian=someone who relies on selling their labor power for a living.

Bourgeoisie=someone who makes money by purchasing said labor power.

It's literally not nebulous at all.

They are all proletarians. That's what they have in common.

Similarly, bourgeoisie doesn't mean anything. There is no council that agrees on how to best exploit proles. British aristocracy has nothing in common with the newly rich in China, and neither have anything in common with the robber barons of the middle east.

Who cares how they see themselves? If someone denies that they're human doesn't make it so.


What arguments? This pleases me, that doesn`t?
If thats the argument then that big buff nazi boyfriend cock in my ass that pleases me is a ok. Also porky paying me to fuck me. Becomes good because i enjoy it.

Why don't you read the book and find out you fucking brainlet?


literally the central point of stirner's philosophy is that society doesn't real and is made up entirely of individual actors, none of whom are identifiably "society"



this image concerns me

I'm not a Stirnerite.

I could just reverse your argument and say that race is a spook. If both me and my boss are white, does it follow that we have the same interests? No, because my boss is trying to fuck me over and turn me into a slave of the capitalist machine. That makes him my enemy, whether he is the same race as me or different race. It doesn't matter what you "identify" as, what matters is your material position in the social structure, and the fact of the matter is that the bourgeoisie are on one side and proletarians are on the other, whether they realize it or not and whether they collaborate with other members of their class or not. Of course the bourgeoisie collaborate way more often than proles though thanks to decades of propaganda to make workers see anything else as the problem (e.g. immigrants) rather than capitalism.

I don't think that all proles have identical interests, in my view nation and locality does matter and people are better off working with local communities and building solidarity with those like them. But between the two, race and class, race is the spook. Its literally just the color of your skin, which is utterly meaningless. As a white american have more in common with a second-gen Pakistani who grew up in Chicago than I do with a white person who grew up in Lithuania. Communities and culture and not reducible to skin color.

Can you explain this meme to me? He ISN'T trying to fuck you over, it just so happens to be a byproduct of following his interests some of the times. There is no active malice. I'd honestly like to know where you think a manager stands to gain anything from being actively malicious to the people they manage.

Be sure to call me a wagecuck in the reply.

What the hell??

Some managers are pretty petty about maintaining their managerial powers.