Spookes

i really liked the one about spooks

Men of the Old Time and the New is pretty good, more specific? The Possessed.

The last one is my favorite, although the book itself is very well written.

I liked Political Liberalism alot for Stirner his tottal destruction of ancap bullshit. I also like this quote somewhere in the second half of the book.

The long and the short of it is this: that we are men is the slightest thing about us, and has significance only in so far as it is one of our qualities, i. e. our property.I am indeed among other things a man, as I am e.g. a living being, therefore an animal, or a European, a Berliner, etc.; but he who chose to have regard for me only as a man, or as a Berliner, would pay me a regard that would be very unimportant to me. And wherefore? Because he would have regard only for one of my qualities, not for me.''
And
The HUMAN religion is only the last metamorphosis of the Christian religion. For liberalism is a religion because it separates my essence from me and sets it above me, because it exalts “Man” to the same extent as any other religion does its God or idol, because it makes what is mine into something otherworldly, because in general it makes out of what is mine, out of my qualities and my property, something alien — to wit, an “essence”; in short,

Yeah Max Stirner put alot of thought in writing ego and his own to be so spot on as possible with the right usage of words. Jason mcquinn also came to sutch realisation from his studies of Stirner.

I really liked this one, I think it is in "The Possessed"
they would like to come in contact with a free will but not for their lives lack moral will, just come in contact with a servile loyalist, you Liberals

Yes, have you?

I just thought it was generally accepted that Stirner was pretty friggin edgy.

Well, what exactly makes him edgy?

His tone throughout the book is pretty edgy, don't get me wrong it's good I just thought everyone got that impression.

Is this what passes for serious questions in 2016?

So he's edgy because his tone of writing isn't passive enough? I did get the impression that he was being "aggressive" in tone, but I didn't construe that as edgy.

Well, why not? In what way is my question not serious? If you claim that someone's edgy, surely you have a reason.

spooks

Including that book and it's principles itself.

His writing style and choice of words is slightly edgy, intentionally made to be provocative and thought- provoking but it's nothing much and it keeps the book from getting dry.

He's a bit too fedora tipper for me. It's like he thinks he knows better when clearly he hasn't understood what the "spooks" really were.

In reality, everything is a spook. But some are "spookier than others"

Some spooks however are necessary for humans to exist in the environment they've already established. Removing them would destroy that environment (and the people in it).

This is what he did not understand. He attacked things that seemed false, but in reality were irremovable.

uh-huh

Have you even read the humane liberalism chapther? he explicitly exposed the relation of the workers their need for society and use of it for personal wellfare and the bourgeoisie their unconscious egoism wich the humane liberal all disliked cause the worker and the rich dont use society or the state for the sake of itself but for their own wellfare just as the christian uses god for their spiritual wellfare.

oh, no I didn't.
So he suggested that there is a pattern between what the ruling class values and how this controls the lower classes?
And that this was necessary or unnecessary?

I find it necessary, society does not function well without "bait"

They are user.

Spooks have been a fixed idea for the last century.

Though Holla Forums might finally alter that. Stirner was onto something, but it was too simplified.
It's this simplification I have a problem with because frankly see
We need bait.
People don't do anything without motivation.

And self-motivation only exists in conjunction with societal motivation and societies concepts and knowledge.

Its necessary and thats why the ruling class wants to maintain it as the state benefits them. They support the state cause the state protects them, its an idea that serves their unconciouse egoism.

Everyone does stuff for their personal wellfare, it doesnt mather if its conciousness or unconciouse egoism to gain material or spiritual wellfare.

'' Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything — yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? — Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the — unattainable.

“Ah, but there is nothing better than freedom!”

What have you then when you have freedom, viz., — for I will not speak here of your piecemeal bits of freedom — complete freedom? Then you are rid of everything that embarrasses you, everything, and there is probably nothing that does not once in your life embarrass you and cause you inconvenience. And for whose sake, then, did you want to be rid of it? Doubtless for your sake, because it is in your way! But, if something were not inconvenient to you; if, on the contrary, it were quite to your mind (e.g. the gently but irresistibly commanding look of your loved one) — then you would not want to be rid of it and free from it. Why not? For your sake again! So you take yourselves as measure and judge over all. You gladly let freedom go when unfreedom, the “sweet service of love,” suits you; and you take up your freedom again on occasion when it begins to suit you better — i. e., supposing, which is not the point here, that you are not afraid of such a Repeal of the Union for other (perhaps religious) reasons.''

Also ima post my notes from the ego and his own where i connect the need to maintain an spook cause people depend on a spook to maintain their wellfare cause the unconciousness ego'ists depend on an fixed idea to have their wellfare realized.

-bringing all back to the I and how the I is the central still in all as you are the I even if you are posssessed as you are the present and the being in existance that all ideas want to corporeal while you create ideas.
“Freedom” awakens your rage against everything that is not you; “egoism” calls you to joy over yourselves, to self-enjoyment
-Freedom is being rid of and owness is owning a something by yourself, there is no longing for the thing you want as you just take it! Freedom is longing for a something (future perhaps) its a dream for something. And you desire that someone would make your desired freedom into reality, be the corporeal of your idea. The something wich will realise sutch idea, and so because he realizes it you become dependent on that wich grants you the realisation of your freedom. Its usually by the corporeal with central might, the state.
-the state grants freedom if you submit to the state, the state makes you free of all undesirables. it makes all your freedom come true by getting rid of the thing you want to be free off by enforcing its might.
-People love the state as the state is the ultimate corporeal structure to realize idea's like freedom! The centralisation of corporeal individuals who will realize the idea's by sure dominance! No alternatives under the state that will oppose the realisation, the state is the ONLY central authority, no one should oppose it.
[Now why, if freedom is striven after for love of the I after all]

-Freedom only wants to get rid of all as it reconizes everything, it realizes everything burdensome and wants to be free of it. Freedom wants to get rid of all even yourself, be free from yourself!
-Owness calls you back to yourself and makes you the central thing, you start with your selfs and are in an universe of nothing. You got rid of everything and taken ownership of yourself.
As own you are really rid of everything, and what clings to you you have accepted; it is your choice and your pleasure. 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.”
-The ego in the rhealm of nihilism, ownership of the self in the rhelm of nothing.
[Freedom teaches only: Get yourselves rid, relieve yourselves, of everything burdensome;]

Thousand years of civilisation and society have abscured to what you are, formed you to be like they want you to be and given you a false idea of the self! Shake it off and disregard all and start anew at yourself!
-Man always does things for his benefit, man is mercenary and does nothing “gratis.”
-religion is followed cause its the means to fullfill desires, spiritual desires. The enssurance of afterlife by giving your loyality to the idea wich grants the rewards to you if you submit to it. God is your savior.
This then gives the phenomenon of cheated egoism, where I satisfy, not myself, but one of my desires, e.g. the impulse toward blessedness. involuntary egoism! People are possessed by their desires and dont own them so they seek for the idea's who are able to realize your desires and so you submit to their idealogy/religion.
-people are secret and involuntary egoists, they are not egoistics but do unconscious egoism and are unwilling to confess their true desires, they keep it secret to themselfs and do thraldom, service, self-renunciation.
[Thousands of years of civilization have obscured to you what you are]

This is from the chapter called owness btw.
What cha guys think?

I think you spelled "Muh Human Nature" wrong.

wew sure showed me user!

Fuck me your triggered more easily than an sjw at a mens rights rally

But it's also necessary for the lower classes too. They too need to get out of bed in the morning and if that wasn't there, the whole system would stop.

what about knowledge itself? What about sexual, emotional welfare?
I don't understand why you'd think the upper class would deny this from them. What ever makes the lower classes happy, can make the upper classes happy too.

Infact, the line may blur. There may be an objective want.

You seem to fall into this class identity trap, but there a numerous cases in history where the leading classes are in agreeance with the lower classes

that's stupid, nobody really wants that. Otherwise that's death user.

Oh come on, there is enough similarity between people to judge an objective need. Sure it's never completely accurate, but it can be in the right direction

People wax in wane in agreeance. The "generational theory" has periods of individualism and social cohesion for a reason.
Because you understand that on a finite world, you have to make an agreement on things in order to survive as a race or as a species.

This is what worries me about anti-religion, anti-nationalism, etc. You inevitably enslave those that adhere to them by ignoring and criticizing those needs.

Freedom, aint free.

The fuck are those symbols?

correct, until it becomes individualized.

Memetically, the motivations split. They start united, then diverge.

This is why societies rise and fall.

actually,

This is a huge fucking issue. Wtf are we going to do about this?
Anarchy doesn't exist because of converging motivations.
But non-anarchy fails because the motivations split.

Fucking hell there is no system that would work.. is there?

top kek "socialists"

...

Thats called society and yes the workers need society just as the rich need the state. Read Social Liberalism

Since when did i say that the rich deny people or a something? You are making baseless assumptions user.

Class isnt absolute, the idea of humanity and doing stuff for the sake of humanity still applys wich is blind by the devision of class between the owners and the ragamuffin. (Without property)

Its in the rhealm of ideas, seriousily read Stirner cause you are now going to misinterpeted everything i say cause you dont know the context that stirner is speaking off.

I strongly advise you to read the book and make your own interpitation with an open mind cause you now only get my interpitation wich can easily be misinterpreted to the level of steven monoloux mental dynamics and a play of definitions.

kek

How is this even possible?
People aren't spiders.

No, spiders are better.

Society and the state are not mutually exclusive user..

I mean come one here. We already live in "anarcho-capitalism" technically, but it still has a society because it has the state.

Without the state you just divide into smaller states.

Think about man.. geez.

You need a society and a state.
The pyramidal structure is a constant, not a conclusion from unjust forms of the state.

It ALWAYS exists. That's why the illuminati meme is important. It's saying "you cannot escape this structure unless you are alone"

Yes, I prefer the argentinian one that eats the female after sex

Society and the state are seperate, a society is union based on an idea and a state is a centralisation of force. You can have a stateless society where people associate with eachother based on anarchism. (Also Stirner his criticism on the communists/socialists and thus society was based on proudhon and weitling their idea's,)

I prefer spiders that don't eat each other, that sounds very scary.

...

That's why people have adapted to feel user.

Trust me, that distinction does not exist.
Look into what happened with communism. Instead of money as the basis of the pyramid, family relations, knowledge and connections became the basis.
You cannot distinguish them. They always exist.

impossible.

It's just impossible.

Because we already have anarchy user.
We have a chaotic universe.

When you have single cells far apart they stay "single" and "stateless".

When they come together, they have a tendency to bond and become a "collective single" or a "state"

As above, same below.

It's like gravitational theory.

If that concept doesn't exist - I call it the graviational theory of societies/states. It's why they form.

You have bonds between two atoms right? Same with people. It's call agreements.
And this agreement system becomes the state out of necessity.

A stateless society, is a fallacy.

No replies?

I like that theory, but at the same time hate it because it implies environmental restraints force us to create states and society.
It also implies that people gravitate for some reason

Which implies, that stirner may have a flaw to his theory.

…pls respond ;_;

...

Well, no one HAS a response.

Because that logic is infallible.

Stirner was wrong.

Why?

Because people want allies more than enemies.
Enemies only exist when people CANNOT be allies.

Spiders ignore that completely and have no sense of self preservation.

They're self destructive

Most people are the opposite, they don't want to destroy themselves.

Those that do want to destroy themselves are removed from the gene pool quickly.

But if a WHOLE society is like that… we have a big problem.

Is capitalism not analogous to the cannibal spiders? Not in the sense that of devouring, but in that the worker is discarded when they have no further use to the capitalist.

If this is correct, why is the behavior of spiders more frightening than the reality of our economic system? Because the violence is no longer hidden behind pretense?

I'd say yes, definitely.

That explains the Moloch meme.

But the same also occurs with all social structures. Even communism.

We just get discarded when we're unusable.

And guess what the banks now think of people..
Oh my fucking god.

As the Melvins put it.

"it's a bitchdog world"