Critique of stirner

thanks m8

t. the most intelligent poster :^]

Nobody ever "debunked" Sollipsism either.

its basically already incoherent. You can't argue with "morality is a spook".

Yet another poster who has clearly read Stirner and isn't just shitposting their hot opinions based on their meme-tier knowledge of Stirner.

Morality != Ethics

Tbh. I'm not really interested in Stirner. I just get kind of annoyed that he's become a meme and you can't argue anything without someone saying its a spook like its a coherent response.

That is a very spicy Schopenhauer meme though.

this.

Morality and ethics are distinct.

I learned that in my theology classes :X

I'm told that's a spook

le ebin spooks meme is abused too fucking hard. Just ignore it.

Only morality is a spook.

Morality = le spoogy "do it because mystical reasons that I claim are objective"

Ethics = interactive action and reaction. It's a science, don't you know.

explain blis

see

Ethics is more a formal system of values. The mistake of philosophy however has been to assume that anyone's ethics is anything but self-interested; philosophers who have purported to express truth in their values have always at bottom carried with that some very fundamental assumptions before their arguments can even get off the ground. This is all in the first section of Beyond Good and Evil.

In reality, what makes ethics real or not is their political significance. It's all a relation of power, and those with strength in their will can make others believe that their ethics is right.

I would then further say that morality is what results from that - from the ruling class forcing their ethics into being real through their political influence, and the ruled being duped into accepting it and basing their acceptance of an ethical system on moralizing: "The King is right because it is the divine will", "private property is justified because of commodity fetishism", etc.

This is a pretty Nietzschean way of explaining it but sure, that works.

I learned more or less the same thing, except that ethics is rooted in the desire for happiness. It's the more fundamental concept than morality. Morality is its manifestation dependent on culture and context.

The best way ;^)

Yeah, I guess that's one way of putting it. I disagree though that ethics is based on a desire for happiness; it really depends on what a particular system of ethics values.

Kant for instance explicitly denies that the end of ethics should be happiness. He quite rightly dismisses this as being basically a vapid and useless guide for ethics, because "happiness" is not only not objective, but no one really even knows what will make them "happy". For all the problems with Kant's ethics, he was very right in saying that the end of ethics should be FREEDOM.

The "desire for happiness" thing comes from theology classes though. The only things I know about ethics comes from moral theology classes. The medieval Catholic philosophers, like Augustine and Aquinsd, were pretty certain about happiness being the end goal.

You know what, guys. I guess I was wrong the whole time. Morality is a spook after all.

OP read this: lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html
In Esperanto: lsr-projekt.de/poly/eoinnuce.html

I've read the whole thing and sadly didnt find any criticism but only explinations on Marx and Nietzsche and other enlightenment/modernists philosophers dodging Stirner like a landmine. The last part almost looked like a criticism of Freud but it was more a comformation of Stirner his philosophy (Freud Concept of Super Ego and Stirner his explinations on getting rid of the intermediates of the fixed idea).

Its sad that there isnt any criticism of Stirner yet.

The reason Stirner is popular on here is not because he's difficult to criticize. It's because he's a vicious, irreverent troll. In fact, Stirner might be the biggest contrarian asshole in history, dethroned only by Diogenes.

It's no wonder he's popular around these parts. Stirner can be used to piss off the tankies and the stormies and the PC-liberals all at the same time.

It explains why there is no criticism, only half-assed attacks like

I didnt interpret that post as an attack, seemed pretty neutral to me.

Did he make any positive statements on how we should act?

This kills the Stirner.

Stirner was just a proto–social constructionist nihilist who failed to follow his own ideas to their logical conclusions. As far as I'm concerned, he's just a morally stunted philosophical sociopath.

what's even worse than people who believe in stirners retarded bullshit are people who think anybody gets triggered by posting the same autistic sterner meme constantly

'' Now, do you suppose unselfishness is unreal and nowhere extant? On the contrary, nothing is more ordinary! One may even call it an article of fashion in the civilized world, which is considered so indispensable that, if it costs too much in solid material, people at least adorn themselves with its tinsel counterfeit and feign it. Where does unselfishness begin? Right where an end ceases to be our end and our property, which we, as owners, can dispose of at pleasure; where it becomes a fixed end or a — fixed idea; where it begins to inspire, enthuse, fantasize us; in short, where it passes into our stubbornness and becomes our — master. One is not unselfish so long as he retains the end in his power; one becomes so only at that “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise,” the fundamental maxim of all the possessed; one becomes so in the case of a sacred end, through the corresponding sacred zeal.

I am not unselfish so long as the end remains my own, and I, instead of giving myself up to be the blind means of its fulfillment, leave it always an open question. My zeal need not on that account be slacker than the most fanatical, but at the same time I remain toward it frostily cold, unbelieving, and its most irreconcilable enemy; I remain its judge, because I am its owner. ''

You sound pretty flusterd spooked man :^)

judgn u

Is race a spook?

Yes its only but an aspect of my body like gender.

'' Man is man in general, and in so far every one who is a man. Now every one is to have the eternal rights of man, and, according to the opinion of Communism, enjoy them in the complete “democracy,” or, as it ought more correctly to be called — anthropocracy. But it is I alone who have everything that I — procure for myself; as man I have nothing. People would like to give every man an affluence of all good, merely because he has the title “man.” But I put the accent on me, not on my being man.

Man is something only as my quality[Eigenschaft] (property[Eigentum]), like masculinity or femininity. The ancients found the ideal in one’s being male in the full sense; their virtue is virtus and arete — i.e. manliness. What is one to think of a woman who should want only to be perfectly “woman?” That is not given to all, and many a one would therein be fixing for herself an unattainable goal. Feminine, on the other hand, she is anyhow, by nature; femininity is her quality, and she does not need “true femininity.” I am a man just as the earth is a star. As ridiculous as it would be to set the earth the task of being a “thorough star,” so ridiculous it is to burden me with the call to be a “thorough man.” ''

When Fichte says, “The ego is all,” this seems to harmonize perfectly with my thesis. But it is not that the ego is all, but the ego destroys all, and only the self-dissolving ego, the never-being ego, the — finite ego is really I. Fichte speaks of the “absolute” ego, but I speak of me, the transitory ego.

How natural is the supposition that man and ego mean the same! And yet one sees, e.g., by Feuerbach, that the expression “man” is to designate the absolute ego, the species, not the transitory, individual ego. Egoism and humanity (humaneness) ought to mean the same, but according to Feuerbach the individual can “only lift himself above the limits of his individuality, but not above the laws, the positive ordinances,of his species.”[60] But the species is nothing, and, if the individual lifts himself above the limits of his individuality, this is rather his very self as an individual; he exists only in raising himself, he exists only in not remaining what he is; otherwise he would be done, dead. Man with the great M is only an ideal, the species only something thought of. To be a man is not to realize the ideal of Man, but to present oneself, the individual. It is not how I realize the generally human that needs to be my task, but how I satisfy myself. I am my species, am without norm, without law, without model, etc. It is possible that I can make very little out of myself; but this little is everything, and is better than what I allow to be made out of me by the might of others, by the training of custom, religion, the laws, the State. Better — if the talk is to be of better at all — better an unmannerly child than an old head on young shoulders, better a mulish man than a man compliant in everything. The unmannerly and mulish fellow is still on the way to form himself according to his own will; the prematurely knowing and compliant one is determined by the “species,” the general demands — the species is law to him. He is determined[bestimmt] by it; for what else is the species to him but his “destiny,”[Bestimmung] his “calling”? Whether I look to “humanity,” the species, in order to strive toward this ideal, or to God and Christ with like endeavor, where is the essential dissimilarity? At most the former is more washed-out than the latter. As the individual is the whole of nature, so he is the whole of the species too.

Everything that I do, think — in short, my expression or manifestation — is indeed conditioned by what I am. The Jew e.g. can will only thus or thus, can “present himself” only thus; the Christian can present and manifest himself only Christianly, etc. If it were possible that you could be a Jew or Christian, you would indeed bring out only what was Jewish or Christian; but it is not possible; in the most rigorous conduct you yet remain an egoist, a sinner against that concept — i.e., you are not the precise equivalent of Jew. Now, because the egoistic always keeps peeping through, people have inquired for a more perfect concept which should really wholly express what you are, and which, because it is your true nature, should contain all the laws of your activity. The most perfect thing of the kind has been attained in “Man.” As a Jew you are too little, and the Jewish is not your task; to be a Greek, a German, does not suffice. But be a — man, then you have everything; look upon the human as your calling.

Now I know what is expected of me, and the new catechism can be written. The subject is again subjected to the predicate, the individual to something general; the dominion is again secured to an idea, and the foundation laid for a new religion. This is a step forward in the domain of religion, and in particular of Christianity; not a step out beyond it.

So its only a little bit spooky.

Oh and
also kills the Stirner.

Something is a spook when its a fixed idea that creates the value for you. An idea you submit to and obey and want to maintain.
Its like feeling great for being left handed and creating a whole religion of left handism. Instead of seing individuals (Who you can utilize for yourself) you see left handers and right handers. The Idea of Left handism has now transformerd people into the categories of their use of the hand.

Indeed and thats why its free to grab by my might, and no claim of theft can stop me.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that there are indeed left and right handed people.

You missed his point. Left handed people do exist, but seeing left handedness as an essential value of oneself is a spook.

How is it not? It is an effect of differences in the brain and shapes the vision one has of the world. You can't learn or unlearn it, it just is that way for your entire life.

There's no need since there's no difference between a spooked man and a unspooked man.
A spooked man can say "So what?" and leaves the unspooked man dumbfounded.

The reverse has happened here to me plenty of times

Can you tell me some examples?

Why should i be dumbfounded when an religiouse guy kills a person in name of god and i say you kill guy and he say so what

Can you rephase that.

Because you can't do shit to him, that's why.

Most happened a long time ago, but they generally went like this

I argue about different nationalities/ethnicities/religions/etc
I don't want that to happen

Sorry, wish I could remember it better, but it mostly comes down to me caring about these things and not understandinf how someone couldn't.

One guy really struck me and I don't know if he was memeing or not but he said that he felt no love or connection to his family, friends, country, history and genetic lineage.

It is just a foreign way of though to me and causes a lot of

Moments

I can kill him if i take value in the possible victim wich i consider my property. But besides that, why should i care?

These nigs don't care about nationalities/ethnicities/religions, so there's no point in reasoning with them in the first place.

You shouldn't care, that's why you shouldn't kill him since he has done nothing to harm you.

But if you intend to harm him because apparently he's spooked, he can fight back and just kill you instead.

Kek nice spooky morality

Pretty mutch, if he has greater might than me and so i get defeated then i die. My choice my consequences.

So in short, it's about who is stronger, the fact one is spooked or not makes no difference.

A Possessed person (Spooked) uses his might for the sake of an idea, like communism or Islam. When they assert their force or might they do it to benefit the idea, usually to realize the idea. (Shape reality according to their idea). The Egoist uses his might for the direct benefit of the self, not for an idea like nation or religion but all for himself.

The fixed idea infringes on the power struggle, duh.

Actually, both are for the benefit of the self, since in this case, the spooked person just defends himself from an attack.

The spooked man wouldn't attack the unspooked man out of the blue because he's committed to a spook known as morality.

What? So the unspooked man kills people for the simple reason that the other has a fixed idea? Isn't that a fixed idea in itself?

A spooked man defends himself in the sense that the self is an corporeal idea (Percieving the self more as a nationality than a individual for the idea of Nationalism) part of the fixed idea. The sensual body is the only acces you have towards the sensual world and must be maintained to be used to realize the idea or perhaps sacraficed if the idea demands it. (Sacrafice yourself in a war between nations)

Yes thats a fixed idea and thats why an egoist wouldnt do it for that sake. He does things for no sake but the sake he creates.

But the sake itself isnt fixed as the egoist can disregard it at will!
I am not unselfish so long as the end remains my own, and I, instead of giving myself up to be the blind means of its fulfillment, leave it always an open question. My zeal need not on that account be slacker than the most fanatical, but at the same time I remain toward it frostily cold, unbelieving, and its most irreconcilable enemy; I remain its judge, because I am its owner.

The spooked man defends himself literally because the unspooked man attacks his ass.
But he himself just creates that fixed idea?

In the end, I don't see the difference, what's the difference between a man killing in the name of God vs a man killing in the name of his Ego?

A fixed idea is an idea that creates the values for you wich you submit. You dont determine the values you apply anymore by own will to the sensual world anymore as the fixed idea does that with you like some kind of idealogical filter infront of your eyes. Instead of seing individuals you see blacks, nationality's, heretics, christians, bad people, good people and so on.

An egoist takes possession of ideas and owns them and only uses them for their utility.

The Egoist dont do it for the sake of the Ego as the Ego is something abstract but purely for utility. The Self is also a nothing, the ego itself is also so irrelevant as other people. The Ego is not greater and not smaller than other but a nothing that creates and controles property. A Creative Notihing.

Yes in the end its 2 apes trying to kill eachother.

So there's really no difference, except the spooked man wouldn't attack people out of the blue since he actually has a fixed idea on what to kill, and what to not kill.

Here are two qoutes.
If God, if mankind, as you affirm, have substance enough in themselves to be all in all to themselves, then I feel that I shall still less lack that, and that I shall have no complaint to make of my “emptiness.” I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.

I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern myself for myself, the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say:

All things are nothing to me.

The spooked man is restricted by the idea he submits to, the idea above him determine what to kill and what to spare. A spooked man has no choice but to submit to the idea that some people are degenerates and should be gassed or reactionary's that should be hanged. He obeys his idealogy and does not know himself.

The Egoist decides it all for himself, but the Egoist isnt some kind of socialpath as you can still choose to love people for their existance wich pleases you. I choose people cause i like them and not because they are are automaticly good cause they are communist, white or Gay or any other idea wich a fixed idea can command the value of. (Like for example consider all whites bad or gays bad according to your idealogy)

"creative singularity" is a better term tbh

This is the mistake that a lot of left minded people I've talked to seem to commit. Your body IS you. There is no magical soul or identity seperate from your physical body. You are still thinking in terms of an illusory ego. Your mind and your conciousness are both part of your body.

This illusion is what allows you to make distinctions like races not mattering.
"Sure we are on average 20% larger than chinese people, but being 20% smarter than blacks? Impossible! Racist!"

Another contradiction you hold is that racist people make their race central to their personality. I can tell you I am a nationalist pushing a nationalist ideal purely because it benefits me and my countrymen. Having 3rd worlders bringing the 3rd world with them into my home is thorougly undesirable, as well as disgusting.

I care for my people and their prosperity on the basis that a better life for them is a better one for me and my family. Man is a social creature.

Sauce on that picture? Is it from some porno manga?

Also, to disprove the quote from whoever it is youre quoting because it is silly. Men and women are supposed to strive for their masculine and feminine virtues respectively, because it cultivates them as better and more valuable human beings.

Weak unmanly and foolish men are neither healthy nor fulfilled. There is no point to them and they drag down their fellow men along themselves.

Sure they are "men" as defined by the sophistry of our language, but since they are failiures of men it is not accurate to call them that.

I am not saying that the body isnt me, i am sayng that something like race or gender is but an aspect of the body itself. Like a pimple on your forehead or your hair color or anything else that makes your sensual body look slightly diffrint from the rest.

Would you end yourself (sacrafice) for the sake of your country? Die for your country? For its Defence?

You can be egoistly and value the idea of your nation and people but only if you by yourself make its value and are free to disregard it at will.

Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist, for him who is always looking after his own and yet does not count himself as the highest being, who serves only himself and at the same time always thinks he is serving a higher being, who knows nothing higher than himself and yet is infatuated about something higher; in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, and abases himself (i.e. combats his egoism), but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of “being exalted,” and therefore of gratifying his egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake, and the disreputable egoism will not come off him. On this account I call him the involuntary egoist.

Unno.

Whatever values you assign to create sutch a measurement of being valuable for the sake of itself.

Pretty spooky mane, its like others have an obligation to participate in your idea of perfect man for the benefit of your idea of society. Gas them! Gas these degenerates! Gas these people who are useless for my idea of society!

Failure only according to your idea of man

Also

You are not to me, and I am not to you, a higher essence. Nevertheless a higher essence may be hidden in each of us, and call forth a mutual reverence. To take at once the most general, Man lives in you and me. If I did not see Man in you, what occasion should I have to respect you? To be sure, you are not Man and his true and adequate form, but only a mortal veil of his, from which he can withdraw without himself ceasing; but yet for the present this general and higher essence is housed in you, and you present before me (because an imperishable spirit has in you assumed a perishable body, so that really your form is only an “assumed” one) a spirit that appears, appears in you, without being bound to your body and to this particular mode of appearance — therefore a spook. Hence I do not regard you as a higher essence but only respect that higher essence which “walks” in you; I “respect Man in you.” The ancients did not observe anything of this sort in their slaves, and the higher essence “Man” found as yet little response. To make up for this, they saw in each other ghosts of another sort. The People is a higher essence than an individual, and, like Man or the Spirit of Man, a spirit haunting the individual — the Spirit of the People. For this reason they revered this spirit, and only so far as he served this or else a spirit related to it (e.g. the Spirit of the Family) could the individual appear significant; only for the sake of the higher essence, the People, was consideration allowed to the “member of the people.” As you are hallowed to us by “Man” who haunts you, so at every time men have been hallowed by some higher essence or other, like People, Family, and such. Only for the sake of a higher essence has any one been honored from of old, only as a ghost has he been regarded in the light of a hallowed, i.e., protected and recognized person. If I cherish you because I hold you dear, because in you my heart finds nourishment, my need satisfaction, then it is not done for the sake of a higher essence, whose hallowed body you are, not on account of my beholding in you a ghost, i.e. an appearing spirit, but from egoistic pleasure; you yourself with your essence are valuable to me, for your essence is not a higher one, is not higher and more general than you, is unique[einzig] like you yourself, because it is you.

The thing is a race is not a trait, but a large framework of common traits(which indeed encompass much more than exterior and looks). When applied on a case with large ammounts of people involved it is a very accurate indicator and predictor of likely genetic traits.

Yes I would die for my nations defence, because it is fulfilling and because it is beneficial for me and my family. Your quote is an autistic overanalysis of the whole thing. For what reason do you think a man cares for himself? It's for the same reason he cares for his family and his fellow men, its in his instinct, the same instinct from which all morals come from. They are there because they are beneficial to us.
I cringe every time some liberal says we have to help shitskins because it is the "right thing to do", while at the same time hating people who car for their own people and themself. They borrow morals from a moral framework in which they dont believe in and twist them to suit their agenda.

Yeah thats why Europeans and Africans can get along so good, there are tottaly not national or ethnical conflicts or any ideas to find a society in to defend and kill the heretics for.

Good for you, ill go be in your nation his goverment and exploit whatever i can get my hands on untill you people can find the corrupt people or criminals. Or fuck your wife while you sit in some country on the other side of the planet deing for your state. :^)

These things are only to benefit society as society demands the participation of its members to maintain itself on whatever idea of community. You go follow your group cause you have to, ill choose it honk honk.

They are not valuable to me or my society.

You misunderstand. You are under no obligation to follow my idea or benefit my society, just as society has no obligation to not just collectively gas you.
The usual moral empathy I feel towards fellow men is gone, because you are not in any way useful to me or my people. Neither are degenerates happy or fulfilled, and even if they were it does not change my view of them. Make no mistake it is the functioning healthy human beings which carry civilization and they have the right to throw the trash off the train any time they deem nessecary.

le everything is subjective

It is the only idea of man. It is the very idea of man based on which the word man itself was created. You may be male, but if you are a frail bodied trend following hipster fag you are not really a man and you are of no use to society.
Same goes for sand niggers. They have no redeeming qualities, or ability to create quality in general, so there is no justification for not straight up purging them.

In the state i am fighting to create it would be illegal.
good luck, guy from leftypol. lmao
Im not a neocon, if I am fighting for my country, it would be IN my country against an invading force or an opressive government.

PS: how do i put a nazi flag on top of my posts?

Verry well then, enjoy the society that you want to maintain. If you like it for what it is then go with it champ.

Then i would be a criminal according to your society wich still wont stop me. Still ganne tap that le ass xD

Verry well then, enjoy the society that you want to maintain. If you like it for what it is then go with it champ.

I am not maintaining anything. I am trying to bring it back to the time before it was morally corrupt and enslaved by propaganda. Economy is secondary to a healthy society.

The ovens just got 10C hotter.

To add, as an end goal I want to hang all the corrupt politicians and their rich jew puppet masters, cleanse media corporations and purge universities of agenda.
The degenerates and shit skins are just a symtpom to be treated meanwhile.

I think you commies can atleast appreciate the first part.

Well kid good luck sucking hitler his cock while he with his magical powers forces inspires your people to be great again or else they get gassed be taught a good life.

yeah man, Hitler totally didnt inspire the german people. He had all those people in the speeches at gunpoint lmao.
nice strawman too, but I'll only be gassing subhumans and juden. neets like you will just have to get a job and stop being fags, or you will starve and have no friends, although to be fair you probably already don't.
Cool smug anime girls m8 but I have the better memes

Go jerk to Wolfestein, tough guy.

Yeah yeah, not everyone is too afraid to have a real opinion and a moral system while entire Europe is aching to do some ethnic cleansing.

And when the problems of your country remain unsolved, you'll have no one but yourself to blame.

What would it mean for a philosopher to be debunked? Which philosophers have been debunked, except insofar as they made demonstrably wrong claims about the physical world. Have Aristotle's Nichomachean ethics been debunked?

click "Show post options & limits"

Yeah, good thing I've studied working political models and not just a bunch of obscure contrarians who never held a job :^)

...

we will do all that and more.

no homo

What's with all the anime shit?

>>>/out/

That still sounds better than the war-torn shithole/theocracy that leftypol wants so desperately tbh

I feel a connection to people based on things that actually fucking matter in a practical and materialist sense, like whether or not they want to harm me or share my value system and not on blood or lineage.

I will always, always feel a stronger connection to a non-white, friendly and productive person than a white asshole. I honestly don't give a shit if some sand-nigger wants to fuck white women or vice-versa, just don't be a fucking idiot and be a productive member of society.

People who scream "MUH BLOOD MUH HISTORY" are fucking obnoxious in how they take on the achievement of long-dead members of their own kind and prance about as if they were their own. Be proud of things outside of your control all you want, you're still spooked as fuck.

I feel a connection to people based on things that actually fucking matter in a practical and materialist sense, like whether or not they want to harm me or share my value system and not on blood or lineage.

I will always, always feel a stronger connection to a non-white, friendly and productive person than a white asshole. I honestly don't give a shit if some sand-nigger wants to fuck white women or vice-versa, just don't be a fucking idiot and be a productive member of society.

People who scream "MUH BLOOD MUH HISTORY" are fucking obnoxious in how they take on the achievements of long-dead members of their own kind and prance about as if they were their own. Be proud of things outside of your control all you want, you're still spooked as fuck.

Even if that was true, that does not sound better in the slightest.

Also

Kek

You don't see the importance behind any of it? I mean, if that's the case then why preserve anything at all

When "preservation" comes at the price of progress what's the point? Should we preserve people being born into slavery(who are white). Should we preserve a workplace environment where your thrust into danger because of "muh profit"? There are obvious western values that should be "preserved". Where you Nazi's glorious uprising is where we mention that the race of an individual does not disqualify them from being able to participate in these values if given the same opportunity as everyone else. You come back with pseudo-science that has already been debunked time and time again by people with degrees, to justify your foolhardy opinions.

God, what an awful straw man. The point of the post is to judge individuals based on their merits and move forward as a society rather than consider themselves below you because of something someone who you're very vaguely genetically related to did.

I fucking hate fascist. You guys are literally the same as Islam, the only difference is you aren't brown. Why don't you guys just let the "invasion" happen. Your dream society could come sooner than you think.

Is there one for cuck to?

You're pretty self righteous.
I like the "people with degrees" part.

What is the German Ideology?

If you can't understand the revolutionary power of waifus then maybe you need to read more Zizek

Stirner was mostly correct, but he was debunked by Karl Schmidt IMO.

The individual is not an egoist. On one hand Stirner is correct to say the unique one exists for itself, and is unique and cannot be labelled but then does not apply said rule to himself: he labels himself egoist or nihilist.

For Schmidt the maxim that I am nothing but myself trumps the maxim that I set my cause on nothing. I don't need to set it. I am my own justification.

The Unique One DOES exist, as Stirner points out, but it is, under the Stirnerite, "spooked" by infinite consciousness. It has its own character by the "grace of spirit". It is dominated by spirit.
Therefore, the law of spirit need be applied to spirit itself, and the individual drags spirit to its grave. The individual then arises from the pre-made world the spirit created during the dialectic, where the physical and psychical worlds merge, and makes its mark atop the rubble. It has no compulsion. It is for itself.

The Uniqueness of the ego is justified by comparison.

However for Schmidt, this is again living by the grace of spirit. It's not the comparison that makes us unique, but this "being for the self".
We are not an idea of free, we are not free, nor are we even freedom. Rights are the shackles of freedom. Labelling is negation.

What we are is the existence, the idea being for itself:

We are the existence of freedom, we are
UNIQUENESS ITSELF

Corrections:

to say the unique one exists*

labels himself egoist*

I-i am not ready for Hegel.

Dw kouhai, if you read Kant and Hume you can do it If you have good secondary lit

Please post if you find more about Karl Schmidt Rebel-san