Spooks

lmgtfy.com/?q=max stirner the ego and its own class and spooks

I see a bunch of websites user, I require a quotation.

There's like 300 pages come on it's easier to just read a book.

lmgtfy.com/?q=max stirner the ego and its own class and spooks quotation

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, prole!

Continue to see websites, user.

There's like 40 hours in a week come on its easier to just work for a boss

With a little collective effort, we could explain it to us, and then no one would have to read books.

Looks like this stuff is way ahead of little old me.

*sigh*
here we go again
the word spook is a meme, the point is to avoid fixed ideas. Don't take up any cause that requires sacrifice. Follow your own desires.

Unless your desire happens to be "protect my race" that is, because that means you are not following your desires, and Holla Forums will tell you what your real desires are.

Collective property can be a spook if you do things for it that dominate your ego. But unlike private property, it can be compatible with egoism depending on how its treated.

But I was doing that anyway.

So, then why is Stirner an ideologically important figure? People should've treat him as a massive troll, instead they treat him seriously. Why?

Holla Forumsfag stop trying to derail my thread.

race is a fixed idea. You cannot "protect your own race" because your own race doesn't exist.

Why can't private property be compatible with ego?

If egoism is about following your own desires, then perhaps you want more stuff than others, and want to be in control, so yeah, you need private property then.

That's assuming Egoism is just standard moral nihilism like is implying.

There you go.

You can follow your desire, unless it's certain desire that Holla Forums doesn't want you to follow.

Fucking hilarious.

Almost everything is a fixed idea. The idea of capitalism and its antithesis communism haven't changed.

There are better reasons not to be nationalist.

t. someone who has no idea what fixed ideas are

...

That's a Holla Forumsfag (or a Stirnerfag false flagging the thread).

I don't care about muh race.

Okay, so what is your special obscurantist definition of "fixed" then? If it's real, you can explain it. I'm waiting.

If you can't, then I'm going to go away assuming you are wrong and it's bullshit.

Yes, where Holla Forums knows more about what you want than even yourself.

Egoism my fucking ass.

This part:

Okay, so what is your special obscurantist definition of "fixed" then? If it's real, you can explain it. I'm waiting.

If you can't, then I'm going to go away assuming you are wrong and it's bullshit.

Was supposed to be in reply to:

Yes please.

Is this egoism or hivemind?

Holla Forums pls. You're not helping. I want to actually understand this shit without putting any effort in, and you come in and start going on about muh poor whites. Please stop.

Soo… Holla Forums's utopia is when humans live exactly like cockroaches?

How revolutionary.

There's no fucking shit to understand.

It's fucking simple. The ideas that I like are not spooks, the ideas that I don't like are spooks.

Follow your desires, unless your desires conflict with mine!

It's that simple.

he's not.

On second thought, roaches need to nest, so even they have some semblance of "property".
How the fuck do you cucks think any of this is a good idea?
How do you retards grow to be this numerous?

A spook is a feel disguised as a real.

Now go read The Ego and His Own and see if I'm correct

Oh please, as if anyone on Leftypol understands or has read anything beyond Neechucks.

I doubt 90% of the people who advocate Stirner's philosophy even read him. Those who did, 50% of didn't understand it because they're lazy. The other 50% don't really give much of a shit, and/or think the rest of the people who stirnerpost are just annoying.

This. It's very simple.

Well, a Christian commie would say that. I want Stirnerfags to justify themselves.

The funny thing is that there's nothing about moral nihilism that says you can't be a Christian either, yet somehow in super special secret nihilism called egoism this is called a "fixed" idea and so you can't, whereas a load of other ideas aren't "fixed" despite being a hundred years old.

Explain this shit crackers.

Just like class.

Stiner is used by Holla Forums is to shoot down arguments regarding ideas they don't like (nation, race, private property).

But when someone mention that ideas that Holla Forums agrees with are spooks (class, "personal property"), they will say that their feel realz.

Oh… Oh my god, yass!
I can finally see. My poverty is just an idea.
Now I'll go out and buy a Ferrari and a mansion in Malibu.
Thanks, dude!

This thread isn't about that. Go.

We want common property, not no property. Also, when we talk about private property we mean the means of production that you don't just possess but can trade and are allowed control of even if you are not using. Basic socialism 101 dude.

Yep just like race.

I can just wish myself and I would become a nigger.

You already act about as smart as you perceive them to be.

Just dont react Rebel, just let them do stupid shit and hope the stirner memes die. Its just the purest of the irony that fucking marxists here meme stirner and fucking hate post left anarchy, while Marx hated the living shit out of Saint Max Blessed be his name and post left continues the Individualist tradition on anarchism wich is now 90% (10% Proudhon, Mutualism got a massive hit in populairty when Tucker moved to Egoism) based on the philosophy of egoism. Marx is rolling in the grave with all these crypto-socialists meming stirner and its funny as fuck, this board is a joke.

Not in the mood :^)

But race ain't real, dude.

How can I be a nigger if race ain't real?

So what I'm saying is that Stirner was a secret pre-fascist whose ideology was designed to destroy socialism in a big puff of weed smoke.

I want to say that these people need to be /gulag/ for life. These guys aren't helping with the thread and rather want to derail them.

Isn't that oppression?

Christ, can we please just make a beginners infograph for these people?
We have this question daily.
A spook is a fixed idea.Max makes no explicit statement whether it's good or bad, but Stirners' recommendation however, is not to subject yourself to them since you're liable to become one of the "possessed". It's not about self-interest, it's about "owness".

All of these of these terms is why it's better for you to read the book itself, than rely on us because we have to write an essay each time.

Anyway i have free time to make it more and more easy for OP by fucking dumping quotes of the book around the subjects he wants to be spoonfeed upon. +lewd

Stirner on the concept of Truth and his utilisation of the sensual world and its truth's
The truth, or “truth in general,” people are bound not to give up, but to seek for. What else is it but the Être suprême, the highest essence? Even “true criticism” would have to despair if it lost faith in the truth. And yet the truth is only a — thought; but it is not merely “a” thought, but the thought that is above all thoughts, the irrefragable thought; it is the thought itself, which gives the first hallowing to all others; it is the consecration of thoughts, the “absolute,” the “sacred” thought. The truth wears longer than all the gods; for it is only in the truth’s service, and for love of it, that people have overthrown the gods and at last God himself. “The truth” outlasts the downfall of the world of gods, for it is the immortal soul of this transitory world of gods, it is Deity itself.

I will answer Pilate’s question, What is truth? Truth is the free thought, the free idea, the free spirit; truth is what is free from you, what is not your own, what is not in your power. But truth is also the completely unindependent, impersonal, unreal, and incorporeal; truth cannot step forward as you do, cannot move, change, develop; truth awaits and receives everything from you, and itself is only through you; for it exists only — in your head. You concede that the truth is a thought, but say that not every thought is a true one, or, as you are also likely to express it, not every thought is truly and really a thought. And by what do you measure and recognize the thought? By your impotence, to wit, by your being no longer able to make any successful assault on it! When it overpowers you, inspires you, and carries you away, then you hold it to be the true one. Its dominion over you certifies to you its truth; and, when it possesses you, and you are possessed by it, then you feel well with it, for then you have found your — lord and master. When you were seeking the truth, what did your heart then long for? For your master! You did not aspire to your might, but to a Mighty One, and wanted to exalt a Mighty One (“Exalt ye the Lord our God!”). The truth, my dear Pilate, is — the Lord, and all who seek the truth are seeking and praising the Lord. Where does the Lord exist? Where else but in your head? He is only spirit, and, wherever you believe you really see him, there he is a — ghost; for the Lord is merely something that is thought of, and it was only the Christian pains and agony to make the invisible visible, the spiritual corporeal, that generated the ghost and was the frightful misery of the belief in ghosts.

As long as you believe in the truth, you do not believe in yourself, and you are a — servant, a — religious man. You alone are the truth, or rather, you are more than the truth, which is nothing at all before you. You too do assuredly ask about the truth, you too do assuredly “criticize,” but you do not ask about a “higher truth” — to wit, one that should be higher than you — nor criticize according to the criterion of such a truth. You address yourself to thoughts and notions, as you do to the appearances of things, only for the purpose of making them palatable to you, enjoyable to you, and your own: you want only to subdue them and become their owner, you want to orient yourself and feel at home in them, and you find them true, or see them in their true light, when they can no longer slip away from you, no longer have any unseized or uncomprehended place, or when they are right for you, when they are your property. If afterward they become heavier again, if they wriggle themselves out of your power again, then that is just their untruth — to wit, your impotence. Your impotence is their power, your humility their exaltation. Their truth, therefore, is you, or is the nothing which you are for them and in which they dissolve: their truth is their nothingness.

Only as the property of me do the spirits, the truths, get to rest; and they then for the first time really are, when they have been deprived of their sorry existence and made a property of mine, when it is no longer said “the truth develops itself, rules, asserts itself; history (also a concept) wins the victory,” etc. The truth never has won a victory, but was always my means to the victory, like the sword (“the sword of truth”). The truth is dead, a letter, a word, a material that I can use up. All truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same way as my lungs are alive — to wit, in the measure of my own vitality. Truths are material, like vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me.

Objects are to me only material that I use up. Wherever I put my hand I grasp a truth, which I trim for myself. The truth is certain to me, and I do not need to long after it. To do the truth a service is in no case my intent; it is to me only a nourishment for my thinking head, as potatoes are for my digesting stomach, or as a friend is for my social heart. As long as I have the humor and force for thinking, every truth serves me only for me to work it up according to my powers. As reality or worldliness is “vain and a thing of naught” for Christians, so is the truth for me. It exists, exactly as much as the things of this world go on existing although the Christian has proved their nothingness; but it is vain, because it has its value not in itself but in me. Of itself it is valueless. The truth is a — creature.

As you produce innumerable things by your activity, yes, shape the earth’s surface anew and set up works of men everywhere, so too you may still ascertain numberless truths by your thinking, and we will gladly take delight in them. Nevertheless, as I do not please to hand myself over to serve your newly discovered machines mechanically, but only help to set them running for my benefit, so too I will only use your truths, without letting myself be used for their demands.

All truths beneath me are to my liking; a truth above me, a truth that I should have to direct myself by, I am not acquainted with. For me there is no truth, for nothing is more than I! Not even my essence, not even the essence of man, is more than I! than I, this “drop in the bucket,” this “insignificant man”!

You believe that you have done the utmost when you boldly assert that, because every time has its own truth, there is no “absolute truth.” Why, with this you nevertheless still leave to each time its truth, and thus you quite genuinely create an “absolute truth,” a truth that no time lacks, because every time, however its truth may be, still has a “truth.”

Is it meant only that people have been thinking in every time, and so have had thoughts or truths, and that in the subsequent time these were other than they were in the earlier? No, the word is to be that every time had its “truth of faith”; and in fact none has yet appeared in which a “higher truth” has not been recognized, a truth that people believed they must subject themselves to as “highness and majesty.” Every truth of a time is its fixed idea, and, if people later found another truth, this always happened only because they sought for another; they only reformed the folly and put a modern dress on it. For they did want — who would dare doubt their justification for this? — they wanted to be “inspired by an idea.” They wanted to be dominated — possessed, by a thought! The most modern ruler of this kind is “our essence,” or “man.”

You're just that exceptional.

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.”

So race is real after all!

Think of it like humans vs you.

''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. ''

What the fuck?

Is this an appeal to nature?

Wow, so there exists superhuman or subhuman now.

''Equality being now conceived as equality of the human spirit, there has certainly been discovered an equality that includes all men; for who could deny that we men have a human spirit, i. e., no other than a human!

But are we on that account further on now than in the beginning of Christianity? Then we were to have a divine spirit, now a human; but, if the divine did not exhaust us, how should the human wholly express what we are? Feuerbach e.g. thinks, that if he humanizes the divine, he has found the truth. No, if God has given us pain, “Man” is capable of pinching us still more torturingly. 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,[Eigenschaften] i. e. our property.[Eigentum]

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.

It is just so with the spirit too. A Christian spirit, an upright spirit, etc. may well be my acquired quality, my property, but I am not this spirit: it is mine, not I its.

Hence we have in liberalism only the continuation of the old Christian depreciation of the I, the bodily Tom. Instead of taking me as I am, one looks solely at my property, my qualities, and enters into marriage bonds with me only for the sake of my — possessions; one marries, as it were, what I have, not what I am. The Christian takes hold of my spirit, the liberal of my humanity.

But, if the spirit, which is not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost, then the Man too, who is not recognized as my quality but as the proper I, is nothing but a spook, a thought, a concept.

How indentity is a spook
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,''

ell.stackexchange.com/questions/16409/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-word-context

It was the 19th Century. We know better now. :^)

...

Thanks, but I think I'm going to fap before I read all that so I can concentrate.

Oh yes.

What fucking context?

What does "nature" here mean, you know Earth being a star is a fixed idea right?

''' The behavior of the commonalty is liberal through and through. Every personal invasion of another’s sphere revolts the civic sense; if the citizen sees that one is dependent on the humor, the pleasure, the will of a man as individual (i.e. as not as authorized by a “higher power”), at once he brings his liberalism to the front and shrieks about “arbitrariness.” In fine, the citizen asserts his freedom from what is called orders (ordonnance): “No one has any business to give me — orders!” Orders carries the idea that what I am to do is another man’s will, while law does not express a personal authority of another. The liberty of the commonalty is liberty or independence from the will of another person, so-called personal or individual liberty; for being personally free means being only so free that no other person can dispose of mine, or that what I may or may not do does not depend on the personal decree of another. The liberty of the press, e.g., is such a liberty of liberalism, liberalism fighting only against the coercion of the censorship as that of personal wilfulness, but otherwise showing itself extremely inclined and willing to tyrannize over the press by “press laws”; i.e. the civic liberals want liberty of writing for themselves; for, as they are law-abiding, their writings will not bring them under the law. Only liberal matter, i.e. only lawful matter, is to be allowed to be printed; otherwise the “press laws” threaten “press-penalties.” If one sees personal liberty assured, one does not notice at all how, if a new issue happens to arise, the most glaring unfreedom becomes dominant. For one is rid of orders indeed, and “no one has any business to give us orders,” but one has become so much the more submissive to the — law. One is enthralled now in due legal form.

In the citizen-State there are only “free people,” who are compelled to thousands of things (e.g. to deference, to a confession of faith, etc.). But what does that amount to? Why, it is only the — State, the law, not any man, that compels them!

What does the commonalty mean by inveighing against every personal order, i.e. every order not founded on the “cause,” on “reason”? It is simply fighting in the interest of the “cause”[Sache, which commonly means thing]. against the dominion of “persons”! But the mind’s cause is the rational, good, lawful, etc.; that is the “good cause.” The commonalty wants an impersonal ruler.

The context is that you are to fucking dumb to see the meaning of the sentence by thinking it has anything to do with nature But it isnt suprising from a le jew man Holla Forumsack :^)

''Furthermore, if the principle is this, that only the cause is to rule man — to wit, the cause of morality, the cause of legality, etc., then no personal balking of one by the other may be authorized either (as formerly, e.g. the commoner was balked of the aristocratic offices, the aristocrat of common mechanical trades, etc.); free competition must exist. Only through the thing[Sache] can one balk another (e.g. the rich man balking the impecunious man by money, a thing), not as a person. Henceforth only one lordship, the lordship of the State, is admitted; personally no one is any longer lord of another. Even at birth the children belong to the State, and to the parents only in the name of the State, which e.g. does not allow infanticide, demands their baptism etc.

But all the State’s children, furthermore, are of quite equal account in its eyes (“civic or political equality”), and they may see to it themselves how they get along with each other; they may compete.

Free competition means nothing else than that every one can present himself, assert himself, fight, against another. Of course the feudal party set itself against this, as its existence depended on an absence of competition. The contests in the time of the Restoration in France had no other substance than this — that the bourgeoisie was struggling for free competition, and the feudalists were seeking to bring back the guild system.

Now, free competition has won, and against the guild system it had to win. (See below for the further discussion.)

If the Revolution ended in a reaction, this only showed what the Revolution really was. For every effort arrives at reaction when it comes to discreet reflection, and storms forward in the original action only so long as it is an intoxication, an “indiscretion.” “Discretion” will always be the cue of the reaction, because discretion sets limits, and liberates what was really wanted, i. e., the principle, from the initial “unbridledness” and “unrestrainedness.” Wild young fellows, bumptious students, who set aside all considerations, are really Philistines, since with them, as with the latter, considerations form the substance of their conduct; only that as swaggerers they are mutinous against considerations and in negative relations to them, but as Philistines, later, they give themselves up to considerations and have positive relations to them. In both cases all their doing and thinking turns upon “considerations,” but the Philistine is reactionary in relation to the student; he is the wild fellow come to discreet reflection, as the latter is the unreflecting Philistine. Daily experience confirms the truth of this transformation, and shows how the swaggerers turn to Philistines in turning gray.

So, too, the so-called reaction in Germany gives proof that it was only the discreet continuation of the warlike jubilation of liberty.''

But it has to do with nature.

Saying a girl is naturally feminine just like the Earth is a star, is an appeal to nature.

''The Revolution was not directed against the established, but against the establishment in question, against a particular establishment. It did away with this ruler, not with the ruler — on the contrary, the French were ruled most inexorably; it killed the old vicious rulers, but wanted to confer on the virtuous ones a securely established position, i. e., it simply set virtue in the place of vice. (Vice and virtue, again, are on their part distinguished from each other only as a wild young fellow from a Philistine.) Etc.

To this day the revolutionary principle has gone no farther than to assail only one or another particular establishment, i.e. be reformatory. Much as may be improved, strongly as “discreet progress” may be adhered to, always there is only a new master set in the old one’s place, and the overturning is a — building up. We are still at the distinction of the young Philistine from the old one. The Revolution began in bourgeois fashion with the uprising of the third estate, the middle class; in bourgeois fashion it dries away. It was not the individual man — and he alone is Man — that became free, but the citizen, the citoyen, the political man, who for that very reason is not Man but a specimen of the human species, and more particularly a specimen of the species Citizen, a free citizen.

In the Revolution it was not the individual who acted so as to affect the world’s history, but a people; the nation, the sovereign nation, wanted to effect everything. A fancied I, an idea, e.g. the nation is, appears acting; the individuals contribute themselves as tools of this idea, and act as “citizens.”

The commonalty has its power, and at the same time its limits, in the fundamental law of the State, in a charter, in a legitimate [or “righteous.” German rechtlich] or “just” [gerecht] prince who himself is guided, and rules, according to “rational laws,” in short, in legality. The period of the bourgeoisie is ruled by the British spirit of legality. An assembly of provincial estates, e.g. is ever recalling that its authorization goes only so and so far, and that it is called at all only through favor and can be thrown out again through disfavor. It is always reminding itself of its — vocation. It is certainly not to be denied that my father begot me; but, now that I am once begotten, surely his purposes in begetting do not concern me a bit and, whatever he may have called me to, I do what I myself will. Therefore even a called assembly of estates, the French assembly in the beginning of the Revolution, recognized quite rightly that it was independent of the caller. It existed, and would have been stupid if it did not avail itself of the right of existence, but fancied itself dependent as on a father. The called one no longer has to ask “what did the caller want when he created me?” but “what do I want after I have once followed the call?” Not the caller, not the constituents, not the charter according to which their meeting was called out, nothing will be to him a sacred, inviolable power. He is authorized for everything that is in his power; he will know no restrictive “authorization,” will not want to be loyal. This, if any such thing could be expected from chambers at all, would give a completely egoistic chamber, severed from all navel-string and without consideration. But chambers are always devout, and therefore one cannot be surprised if so much half-way or undecided, i. e., hypocritical, “egoism” parades in them.''

The members of the estates are to remain within the limits that are traced for them by the charter, by the king’s will, etc. If they will not or can not do that, then they are to “step out.” What dutiful man could act otherwise, could put himself, his conviction, and his will as the first thing? Who could be so immoral as to want to assert himself, even if the body corporate and everything should go to ruin over it? People keep carefully within the limits of their authorization; of course one must remain within the limits of his power anyhow, because no one can do more than he can. “My power, or, if it be so, powerlessness, be my sole limit, but authorizations only restraining — precepts? Should I profess this all-subversive view? No, I am a — law-abiding citizen!”

The commonalty professes a morality which is most closely connected with its essence. The first demand of this morality is to the effect that one should carry on a solid business, an honourable trade, lead a moral life. Immoral, to it, is the sharper, the, demirep, the thief, robber, and murderer, the gamester, the penniless man without a situation, the frivolous man. The doughty commoner designates the feeling against these “immoral” people as his “deepest indignation.”

ll these lack settlement, the solid quality of business, a solid, seemly life, a fixed income, etc.; in short, they belong, because their existence does not rest on a secure basis to the dangerous “individuals or isolated persons,” to the dangerous proletariat; they are “individual bawlers” who offer no “guarantee” and have “nothing to lose,” and so nothing to risk. The forming of family ties, e.g., binds a man: he who is bound furnishes security, can be taken hold of; not so the street-walker. The gamester stakes everything on the game, ruins himself and others — no guarantee. All who appear to the commoner suspicious, hostile, and dangerous might be comprised under the name “vagabonds”; every vagabondish way of living displeases him. For there are intellectual vagabonds too, to whom the hereditary dwelling-place of their fathers seems too cramped and oppressive for them to be willing to satisfy themselves with the limited space any more: instead of keeping within the limits of a temperate style of thinking, and taking as inviolable truth what furnishes comfort and tranquillity to thousands, they overlap all bounds of the traditional and run wild with their impudent criticism and untamed mania for doubt, these extravagating vagabonds. They form the class of the unstable, restless, changeable, i.e. of the prolétariat, and, if they give voice to their unsettled nature, are called “unruly fellows.”

Such a broad sense has the so-called proletariat, or pauperism. How much one would err if one believed the commonalty to be desirous of doing away with poverty (pauperism) to the best of its ability! On the contrary, the good citizen helps himself with the incomparably comforting conviction that “the fact is that the good things of fortune are unequally divided and will always remain so — according to God’s wise decree.” The poverty which surrounds him in every alley does not disturb the true commoner further than that at most he clears his account with it by throwing an alms, or finds work and food for an “honest and serviceable” fellow. But so much the more does he feel his quiet enjoyment clouded by innovating and discontented poverty, by those poor who no longer behave quietly and endure, but begin to run wild and become restless. Lock up the vagabond, thrust the breeder of unrest into the darkest dungeon! He wants to “arouse dissatisfaction and incite people against existing institutions” in the State — stone him, stone him!

'' Proudhon (Weitling too) thinks he is telling the worst about property when he calls it theft (vol). Passing quite over the embarrassing question, what well-founded objection could be made against theft, we only ask: Is the concept “theft” at all possible unless one allows validity to the concept “property”? How can one steal if property is not already extant? What belongs to no one cannot be stolen; the water that one draws out of the sea he does not steal. Accordingly property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property. Weitling has to come to this too, as he does regard everything as the property of all: if something is “the property of all,” then indeed the individual who appropriates it to himself steals.

Private property lives by grace of the law. Only in the law has it its warrant — for possession is not yet property, it becomes “mine” only by assent of the law; it is not a fact, not un fait as Proudhon thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, legitimate property, guarantied property. It is mine not through me but through the — law.

Nevertheless, property is the expression for unlimited dominion over somewhat (thing, beast, man) which “I can judge and dispose of as seems good to me.” According to Roman law, indeed, jus utendi et abutendi re sua, quatenus juris ratio patitur, an exclusive and unlimited right; but property is conditioned by might. What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing; if it gets away from me again, no matter by what power, e.g. through my recognition of a title of others to the thing — then the property is extinct. Thus property and possession coincide. It is not a right lying outside my might that legitimizes me, but solely my might: if I no longer have this, the thing vanishes away from me. When the Romans no longer had any might against the Germans, the world-empire of Rome belonged to the latter, and it would sound ridiculous to insist that the Romans had nevertheless remained properly the proprietors. Whoever knows how to take and to defend the thing, to him it belongs till it is again taken from him, as liberty belongs to him who takes it.—

Only might decides about property, and, as the State (no matter whether State or well-to-do citizens or of ragamuffins or of men in the absolute) is the sole mighty one, it alone is proprietor; I, the unique,[Einzige] have nothing, and am only enfeoffed, am vassal and as such, servitor. Under the dominion of the State there is no property of mine.

I want to raise the value of myself, the value of ownness, and should I cheapen property? No, as I was not respected hitherto because people, mankind, and a thousand other generalities were put higher, so property too has to this day not yet been recognized in its full value. Property too was only the property of a ghost, e.g. the people’s property; my whole existence “belonged to the fatherland”; I belonged to the fatherland, the people, the State, and therefore also everything that I called my own. It is demanded of States that they make away with pauperism. It seems to me this is asking that the State should cut off its own head and lay it at its feet; for so long as the State is the ego the individual ego must remain a poor devil, a non-ego. The State has an interest only in being itself rich; whether Michael is rich and Peter poor is alike to it; Peter might also be rich and Michael poor. It looks on indifferently as one grows poor and the other rich, unruffled by this alternation. As individuals they are really equal before its face; in this it is just: before it both of them are — nothing, as we “are altogether sinners before God”; on the other hand, it has a very great interest in this, that those individuals who make it their ego should have a part in its wealth; it makes them partakers in its property. Through property, with which it rewards the individuals, it tames them; but this remains its property, and every one has the usufruct of it only so long as he bears in himself the ego of the State, or is a “loyal member of society”; in the opposite case the property is confiscated, or made to melt away by vexatious lawsuits. The property, then, is and remains State property, not property of the ego. That the State does not arbitrarily deprive the individual of what he has from the State means simply that the State does not rob itself. He who is State-ego, i.e. a good citizen or subject, holds his fief undisturbed as such an ego, not as being an ego of his own. According to the code, property is what I call mine “by virtue of God and law.” But it is mine by virtue of God and law only so long as — the State has nothing against it. ''

Son, try to understand what a "fixed idea" is first. This is vital to understanding "spooks".
You are just embarrassing yourself right now.

A fixed idea is something people devote themselves to, even placing it above their own interests.

Nature is exactly this, because nature is entirely malleable.

So saying shit like "naturally" or "by nature" is a spook.

Here are some introductions if reading is still hard to do.

Dont ask questions on Stirner here, 95% of the people here know jack fucking shit about Max Stirner, his philosophy, its relation with anarchism and all the fucking anarchist schools based on his philosophy. (I still have to come across any other anarcho-Individualist here)
Try >>>/anarcho/ or 4chan /lit/ if you want a bit better awnser then this shithole, enjoy your fap.

Now Stirner is getting to ancapism.

How is this even compatible with Marxism is beyond me.

Marxism requires a state to abolish private property because it's the state who keeps private property, yet Stirner considers if there's a state, there wouldn't be any private property.

inb4 private property ain't property

"Nature" in the sense that if a girl has a vagina it means she's the female sex.
I really don't get how that wasn't clear to you. An appeal to nature is when something is only good because it is natural, but the line he is a drawing is a differentiation between physical characteristics and the fixed idea people have of those characteristics.

It's not clear to me because femininity has jack shit to do with the fact you have a vagina or not.

So having a vagina means you are feminine, what? Isn't that a spook?

And no, an appeal to nature is saying it IS because it's natural.

So saying a girl is feminine, by nature, is an appeal to nature.

I did. Now I can think again.

wew

but I digress

>Who says collective property isn't a spook? property, as stirner says, is only defined by how well one can prevent others from taking it. As of now, armed men with guns (called police) will arest workers who try to take the workplace for themselves. Whether the armed group is driven by further "spooks" such as believing that business owners have a right to their property or by self interest, is irrelevant.

Some spooks 'aint so bad.

the bullshit happens when you realize you're suffering for no real benefit

In both cases, romance is certainly a spook, because it's the fixed idea that there is something worthwhile in dedicating so much time, money stress and effort into a single person whom you're interested in.

But the deadly spook is the unwavering commitment of the second one that brings no benefit to the subject

You're pretty much on point with this one. The only spooks that are worth destroying are the ones that are useless or detrimental. Even Stirner said that most atheists are just as spooked over their position on theism as the religious often are.

Of course a egotist can be pro private property, but for the vast majority of proles, they will never be in the position to own more than others, and so wanting to even out the ownership of wealth in the world is in their best interest. Nobody thinks that all egotists also have to be communist, well, except for idiots.

And he's agreeing with you because femininity is just what is commonly interpreted as "thoroughly female".

Yes, that's his point.

That's not what I've read, but either way that's the opposite of what he's saying as I said above.

No, Stirner actually does agree.

He says girls are feminine by nature of being girls, thus no need for "true femininity".

...

This implies that private property and collective property are the same with regard to how spooky they are, since BOTH are only defined by their protection and enforcement. Collective property can be glommed together from private property in revolutionary expropriation, but equally, private property can be carved out from collective property in counter-revolutionary expropriation.

It sounds like the real spook is the part where you start believing there's a higher guarantee to things.

So, it's more than egoists can be bourgeois logically on a basic level, it's just that it's a terrible idea if you are already a proletarian to put your hope in a role with such limited access, and that's why you should be a communist?

But Holla Forums doesn't like classes either. Indeed, we're for the abolition of all of those things you just mentioned.

So there's more to the spook than that.

Yeah.
That's a fairly accurate way of putting it.

It's not put of moralism I oppose capitalism. It's out of rational self-interest.

Marxism is class war, if there's no class, then there is no point of Marxism.

Well, yeah… I think people would stop being Marxists once they live under communism.

Unless super duper ultra communists come along!1!!! XD!!!!!

EXPROPRIATE ALL TOOTHBRUSHES

I wonder if Ayn Rand had ever been presented with any non-humanistic arguments for socialism?

To clarify: she made an argument for ultracapitalism because she was really arguing for self-interest firstly, but I wonder how she would have reacted had people shown her self-interested arguments for communism?

meaning?

t. not only have I not read Stirner, but I've never even touched anything of Marx's

Meaning the guarantee emerges from some magical nature force or God rather than the actions of human beings.

what guarantee are you on about? the only guarantee is the force preventing others from taking it. Be it what you can muster yourself, or what force you can convince others to give.

...

I'm not seeing how unless you ignore his skepticism of "True Femininity".
Unless you're saying there's no such thing as being biologically female.

What? Do you think Stirner thought property rights came from nature, God, etc? I don't think you're in a position to tell others they haven't read Stirner.

Does the entire concept of spooks fall apart if we recognize that abstract objects are also real things? Or shit, what if God exists and you cam to that conclusion through reason. Is religion really still a spook?

...

...

Correct. The spook is believing there's something more than that is what I'm saying. People believe in natural rights because they're spooked.

Oh. I guess this is the level of discussion we're at now. I guess we can just dismiss arguments if they conflict with the word of Stirner.

you didn't give an argument tho.

yes, and? that's kinda the point stirner was making. I don't even have a natural right to my bum hole, only the power to defend it and the willingness to do so.

Yes I am aware. I was asking a question. I'm saying that there are arguments for God's existence. If those arguments are sound and valid, then they come with consequences that negate Stirner's philosophy that it's all just spooks in the mind.

Plus you kind of missed the first part. Saying something is an abstraction doesn't mean it isn't real. I guess I never really understood what we're supposed to be throwing away. Justice is an abstract thing, sure, but that doesn't make might right.

My general thesis is that Stirner fags and egoists are people completely unable to deal with abstractions, so they say that they don't matter. Focus on sense-certainty. Ignore that other stuff about law, religion and culture.

Yeah, I know. Re-read the first post you responded to.

So? Even the ones that do make thought-out arguments are never are able prove it's their specific God. Stirner doesn't even deny the existence of an experience people call God. If you ever get around to actually reading the book, make sure not to skip the part where he talks about God being chased into the breast of Men.
He rips into Humanist for the same problems he encounters with religious people actually.
Also, he believed every enthusiasm was a religion and it was impossible to avoid.

That's not what a fixed idea is tho, but it could be depending on the context. Depends on whether the abstraction is founded upon something concrete.

He's saying femininity, not female.

He's saying true femininity doesn't exist, girls are naturally feminine.

That's plain wrong.

Except if class is not real, then we are already living under communism.

Time to give up Marxism?

If you don't think being biologically female is a feminine quality then you're too far gone.

He's saying "true femininity", after biological femininity, is often an "unattainable goal" because it's an arbitrary standard.

How what? I thought gender isn't a thing? Femininity is part of gender.
Nigger what the fuck is biological femininity? Femininity is a gender thing, not sex.

When did I say that?

Stirner is drawing a distinction here

You were implying gender is a spook.

There is none. Because we have a thing called female, that is biology.

Femininity as defined is a social thing.

Biological femininity is a oxymoron because it's saying social norms is natural, which is an appeal to nature.

Communism is a spook.

...

Because you don't know what a spook is this is going to make it difficult for you to understand. Fixed ideas exist, but they simply exist as that. Gender as a fixed idea would be just because you are given what is considered the masculine quality of being born biologically male, you must act as thoroughly that way as possible.

"The ancients found the ideal in one’s being male in the full sense; their virtue is virtus and arete — i.e. manliness"

Being fully male is where manliness derives itself. You can disagree with "the ancients" about how they came to that conclusion if you'd like, but that's where the term is derived.

Which was the wellspring where femininity came from and the original material basis for it.

Without that, you're pissing in the wind.

Which was used to define what it means to be "female in the full sense". Femininity itself presupposes being female is a feminine quality.

Are there or are there not female biological features that are socially attributed to femininity?

Again, I know you're going to keep ignoring me, but he's drawing a distinction here between that and biological factors. Essentially, people at one time took the female sex and formed social mores and customs around it. The thing in and of itself wasn't considered sufficiently female. If you think this is the same thing as saying social norms are natural, then please just go back to tumblr.

I take it you've never heard that a spectre of Communism haunting Europe.

Does this mean evolution is a spook?

I have heard but it does not scare me, it is just a boogeyman.

Not him, but evolution in itself is not a spook, since it's just a way of describing the development of species. It gets spooky when you start using the theory of evolution as a basis for your morality (such as Social Darwinism).

Same with the fetishisation of science by new atheist fags. Science in itself is not spooky, it's just a tool, but when you say things like "science and reason good, philosophy and feelings bad," then it gets spooky.

In what sense is he using truth here? Hopefully he isn't denying the existence of objective reality.

Are you litterally retarded?

...

...

if you happen to have an arbitrary liking for different colour skins, I guess. But it seems a bit retarded. I doubt it would actually be what makes you happy.

I don't really understand these responses. Please help.

Marx wrote "the German Ideology" mostly as a rebuttal to Stirner, but however, some thinks Stirner books made Marx move to materialism and develop what we refer today as marxist philosophy.

I guess it's the old subjective vs objective dilemna, can we know how the world truly is or aren't we just interpretating it?

So who's forcing me?

Such is the way "egoists" work, by telling people how to be happy instead of letting people be happy.

There are no female biological features that are considered to be femininity.

Because femininity, as said, are social norms as observed by humans, not biological features.

Peer pressure and education, mostly.

Jesus christ, you are pretty much saying I was forced without me knowing it.

I cannot believe the egoists on this board.

Even if we just interpret the world, that still means there is a world that we interpret.

The redpill is always hard to swallow.