Race is a spook

small correction actually, its not irrelevant because it still unfortunately affects peoples lives, but only in the form of ideology

You never excelled in high school biology, did you? If they were different species, they wouldn't be able to interbreed.

nah mate there a different race not a different species. you know, race, that arbitrary taxedermic category that isn't used for any other species.

They were different races, which bred to give birth to breeds separate from the parent races.

well technically it can be used, but still kek

what, I thought you were trying to prove the validity of race, not speciation. You aren't Darwin you know.

RACE is a QUALLITY just as my NATIONALITY and GENDER and it is a spook when YOU JUDGE ME UPON MY QUALLITY INSTEAD OF MY UNIQUE BEING.

'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,'

And whatte fuck do you even proof with these irrelevant information on DNA? RACE, NATIONALITY AND GENDER OR IDEAS OF BEING A SOMETHING, ITS AN FUCKING INDENTIY WICH CAN BE BASED ON YOUR BIOLOGY BUT THAT DOESNT MAKE IT TRUE AS GOD WICH IS PURE IDEA IS ALSO EXISTANT AND PRACTISED. ALSO BEING A MUSLIM IS ALSO AN IDEA, ITS BASED ON THE WORSHIP OF ALLAH!

It's a good thing we have this thread every week or I'd forget that one race is inferior to another.

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but are you okay?

'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.

'READ YOU FUCKING NIGGERS, READ!'

...

Yeah i am fine thanks to the teachings of Kanye West, i wont fall into dispair with his knowledge.

...

...

Also OP you dont know the definition of spooks. Spook does not mean "anything that isn't material or real".

That's basically implied.

No it's not.

not op, but what does it mean? I thought it was something that isn't material, something that is in essence arbitrary and lies only in the mind

...

To try and summarize a 300 page book in a sentence:

Examples of things that don't real: Gods, afterlife, eternal glory

Example of something that is real but can be a spook (doesnt have to be): Family.

Correct me if im wrong, nihlist poster

s spook is a "fixed idea" that subordinates an individual to the needs or ideology of that idea

there is a territorial landmass known colloquially as "England" for example. it is not a spook. but the patriot fighting for "England" the idea, whatever that is, is possessed by that spook.

Wrong.

Yup, an idea that possessed you and uses you to realize the idea. The idea itself is unable to become real by itself as it needs to be realized by individuals in the sensual world that can APPLY the idea to the sensual world and thus transform the world towards that idea. If its real (Applyd idea) or non-real (idea stuck in the rhealm of ideas meaning that it can only thought off) doesnt mather, its still a fixed idea.

Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively when I regard those persons who cling to the Higher, and almost the whole world of men, as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse. What is it, then, that is called a “fixed idea”? 'An idea' that has 'subjected the 'man' to 'itself''.

*What is it, then, that is called a “fixed idea”? AN IDEA that has SUBJECTED the MAN to ITSELF''.
Subjected! Possessed! Utilize you for the interest of the idea! To realize the idea! To make the idea existant! To bring a communist/capitalist/mutualist/natsoc society by the act of the possessed people who want to bring that idea into existance.

ALL ideas can be fixed, the purpose is to own them all and make yourself the absolute. Use the idea's for the sake off yourself! The Egoist uses ideas FOR HIS 'OWN' SAKE.

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.

Check this little into of the Humane Liberalism chapther on the humanist criticism on the involuntary egoism of the proletariat and the bourgeois, who unconciously use their spook/concept/idea for their 'OWN' wellfare. They dont own the idea but they use the idea, they are still partly possessed but their hidden egoism pokes holes in their idea wherefrom their true intentions come above. That we use idea's for our own benefit/sake/wellfare.

'' As liberalism is completed in self-criticizing, “critical”[38] liberalism — in which the critic remains a liberal and does not go beyond the principle of liberalism, Man — this may distinctively be named after Man and called the “humane.”

The laborer is counted as the most material and egoistical man. He does nothing at all for humanity, does everything for himself, for his welfare.

The commonalty, because it proclaimed the freedom of Man only as to his birth, had to leave him in the claws of the un-human man (the egoist) for the rest of life. Hence under the regime of political liberalism egoism has an immense field for free utilization.

The laborer will utilize society for his egoistic ends as the commoner does the State. You have only an egoistic end after all, your welfare, is the humane liberal’s reproach to the Socialist; take up a purely human interest, then I will be your companion. “But to this there belongs a consciousness stronger, more comprehensive, than a laborer-consciousness”. “The laborer makes nothing, therefore he has nothing; but he makes nothing because his labor is always a labor that remains individual, calculated strictly for his own want, a labor day by day.”[39] In opposition to this one might, e.g., consider the fact that Gutenberg’s labor did not remain individual, but begot innumerable children, and still lives today; it was calculated for the want of humanity, and was an eternal, imperishable labor.

The humane consciousness despises the commoner-consciousness as well as the laborer-consciousness: for the commoner is “indignant” only at vagabonds (at all who have “no definite occupation”) and their “immorality”; the laborer is “disgusted” by the idler (“lazy-bones”) and his “immoral,” because parasitic and unsocial, principles. To this the humane liberal retorts: The unsettledness of many is only your product, Philistine! But that you, proletarian, demand the grind of all, and want to make drudgery general, is a part, still clinging to you, of your pack-mule life up to this time. Certainly you want to lighten drudgery itself by all having to drudge equally hard, yet only for this reason, that all may gain leisure to an equal extent. But what are they to do with their leisure? What does your “society” do, that this leisure may be passed humanly? It must leave the gained leisure to egoistic preference again, and the very gain that your society furthers falls to the egoist, as the gain of the commonalty, the masterlessness of man, could not be filled with a human element by the State, and therefore was left to arbitrary choice.

It is assuredly necessary that man be masterless: but therefore the egoist is not to become master over man again either, but man over the egoist. Man must assuredly find leisure: but, if the egoist makes use of it, it will be lost for man; therefore you ought to have given leisure a human significance. But you laborers undertake even your labor from an egoistic impulse, because you want to eat, drink, live; how should you be less egoists in leisure? You labor only because having your time to yourselves (idling) goes well after work done, and what you are to while away your leisure time with is left to chance.

But, if every door is to be bolted against egoism, it would be necessary to strive after completely “disinterested” action, total disinterestedness. This alone is human, because only Man is disinterested, the egoist always interested. ''

For his own sake, unless your idea is somehow racist or nationalist.

It's amazing how such a large part of leftypol is completely unable to grasp what a spook is, considering it's explained in detail every single day.

Not to derail this amazing thread, but is this a good way to shave body hair for a man?

I'm a pretty hairy dude and for the most part I just let it grow, but shaving the tummy and trimming the chest, this picture has me rethinking my decision.
I don't look like that guy tho. More of a slightly chubby and less muscles and no tattoos.

You should really learn to condense that shit down. Most people dont want to read a wall of text when they are posting about politics to relax after work/school/whatever.

There is a more easy forum for people like you who get a headache at reading tiny parts of a book.
>>>Holla Forums

Its because you embody the national and ''race inyourself and become the realizer of its idea. You are spooked if anything is above you, may it be race, gender, nationality or just anything that wants to reduce you to a unit of the collective.

But you would happily put shit like class's interests and shit above you?

inb4 class's interest is my interest, bu race/national interest isn't

It's a good way if you're looking to appeal to women.

If you've never done it, wax. It can cause the hair to grow back thinner and lighter. Then make sure your upper arms and back stay hairless. A little bit of hair on chest and forearms looks great but keep it trimmed. Belly is harder to judge, sometimes light hair works and sometimes it doesn't.

I look kinda like that, but my tats aren't sleeves.

KILL YOURSELF.

Not very Christianlike of you user

I dont, i am not a socialist.

Read this post.

I allready have a boyfriend thank you.

This, listing to some more Kanye to get rid of that dispair, lyrics are philosophical.

USLA! USLA! USLA!

No, because there is a large portion of my class that's plain wrong about everything and their interest aren't monolithic.
*See Lumpenproles

You are an egoist, who lives in delusion that everything is below him?

The invention of lumpenproles is really some of the most hilarious shit.

Apparently, prostitutes and drug dealers aren't entitled to their labors.

No, there i nothing below me or above me but my property.

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.

Thank for the advice, will take it in to consideration. What about ass and below? Just wax it all?

Well, that's plainly wrong because the state is above you.

inb4 state ain't real

Fuck off mate I am reading the books. But this image board is not a book or a book club, its an image board.

Depends on who you ask.

Depends on fucking Marx.

Who I have no loyalty too as far as that's concerned.
Socialism doesn't begin and end with him.

...

No, it depends on the validity of your analysis and the rhetoric behind it. Dialectical materialism is so far pretty undefeated when it comes to deconstructing a system of power relationships to its enduring maxim.

Marx defines communism as it is.

Prostitutes literally sells their vagina and ass, user.

Marx said that.

x being a spook doesn't mean that "everything is identical", but on the contrary that everyone is unique and that spook holds no value on matter.
I bet you wouldn't have a hard time to prove "humans" are real, like race is real, but humanity is a spook as well.

Marx said what? Marx had a lot to say, and to this date most on the left consider him the best authority on socioeconomics and a progressive economic program. Marx did not dictate the outlines for the scientific method…

Nigga, communist thought doesn't even begin with Marx.

Marx invented lumpenproles and say these lumpenproles don't actually deserve the fruits of their labors, and lumpenproles would either have to find another job or get purged.
Marx dictates his own ideology, else we accept revisionists.

And Marx is the one who makes a platform out of it with clear definitions.