Why is this guy so fucking right?

Spooks are abstract ideas which do not exist in the real world, but people still let these spooks control their lives. Examples:
>god
>state
>morality

alle illusionen ist spoochs.
sey are ghosts. sey liv in juv.

vat ist se kontradiktion hir?

what a well-times shitpost

>lol bro everything is a social construct
you know who's a spook? Stirner since he's a dead fucking ghost

A lot of people tend to misunderstand him completely and basically interpret him as "I'll just call anything I dislike a spook"

Maxxy, our little milk shop own friend was addressing possesive ideas, like moraliy, ideology, the state, laws, morals and societal "Musts" and in a lot of ways can attract modern right-wingers and conservatives because a majority of them tend to be along the line of hating the state and thinking authoritarianism and IDPOL is fucking stupid.

It's in your best interest to work for your boss because you understand the hierarchy is needed to not let society go to shit.

>vis se trus sen.
What did he mean by this

Solidarity exists without a state easily, any retard who thinks that this can't happen must of missed our whole evolution. It's a poor argument. Doing what you want could essentially equate to helping others. It's not necessitating hedonism. it's saying "Don't let other rules you, define your own values, and live your own life" which is a valid argument.

>Don't let other rules you, define your own values, and live your own life

So he was the original special snowflake.

and what happens when lots of people come together to form a society and develop a set of laws and even a governing body to maintain the responsibilities of daily community affairs? oh yeah, it's a state

ANCAPs are cancer and will be right behind the Jews on the day of the rope

maybe it's a dumb meta-question but why isn't ascribing to his philosophy of spook avoidance not in itself a spook?

Spontaneous order vill kreate hei trust social zusammenhang.

>behind the jews
They ARE the jews

Your not supposed to follow his philosophy, but to think for yourself schmuck.

A special snowflake is the exact opposite of that, a special snowflake only grows in an environment where it's tolerated. An individualist free society could smash stirner's head in if they were going by his philosophy and nothing would be "Wrong" about it.

What?
How'd you equate ancapitailism with Max? Are you legitimately retarded? Nihilists and egoists fucking drop the bomb on ancaps all the time, so does leftypol, even pol shits on ancaps.

>When lots of people
Lots of people =/= less then 1,000 people in a society of 25 million if we're talking about australia. That's not a lot.

>Form a society
You don't need to form a society mate, it'd just work along the line of people giving each other shit from mutual benefit, even in this society environment this shit still happens. We've been bartering for millenia. It's not like it'll disappear.

The rest of your argument isn't even relevant to what I'm saying.

If he never gaint kredens vis ennivon but leftypol sen leftypol must be vit se trus.

You're not funny.

>bartering

That died with feudalism. It's inefficient.

so spooks are basically spirits?

sats a spoook!!!

>Arguments of efficeny
Efficeny and productivity quite literally is killing australian laid back culture and is making us more of a group of robots rather then, you know, conscious individuals.

Holy shit, this guy

>haha look at this guy, he doesn't want to basically waste half of his life doing meaningless shit instead of achieving his own goals and living his own life, what a retard

Figures a shithead living a reformist hellhole would say this. Go kneel before ahmed.

evrising is spook.
Nossing ist se ovnly rialitet.

>sboog :DDDDDD

I'm in favour of full automation and basic income. Sure working hours can be reduced. A barter system isn't feasible for a globalised digital world though.

>Another reformist
Jesus Cred Forums
I miss when you had nazis, libertarians and shit.
Now you've just got alt-right redditors.

goals are a spook

danskjävel

A goal is usually defined by yourself, and isn't posessive. It is determined by you. Stirner's defintion of a spook is a possessive idea, ei; a external idea which controls you.

Nice /qa/ meme.
This was a containmenr board for natsoc shit and still very much is

Was max stirner even fucking real?

All pictures of him are drawings.

Go fight for your beloved revolution then.

>leddit alt right boogeyman

Wrong.

Are you genuinely retarded?
Slap the shit out of yoruself, read my post again.

>Beloved revolution
What fucking ideology do you think you're talking about mate? Are all you guys illiterate? We're not talking about revolutionary leftism. Max was a dude who basically worked a rich woman of all her wealth, ran a milkshop, hit debt then taught girls later on. The dude's not like "muh revolution" the dude's like "Everything is stupid, but utilize it to your benefit"

That's the way she goes. Most of these newfags aren't even old enough to have a club penguin account.

Yeah, he was. Wrote plenty of books and knew bruno bauert. He just didn't get any photos or shit like that. He's only really notable for his dimissive tone towards ideology. He wasn't a remarkable figure.

You can either have revolution or reform to change society to operate on these principles. Pick one. Or is Stirner going to call that a spook?

>Reform or revolt
>Absolutism
>YOU MUST
Nigga you dumb, read a fucking book for once.

...

you're a spooked cuck

That's literally true tho and you know it

You think you want to have children, but it's actually an illogical instinct pushing you to have that desire and feel like shit if you don't achieve it

>but my genes lmao I'd erase my genepool that way????

And you specifically care because? You won't even be alive to see what happens with "your" genes, and statistics are highly in favor of them dying in some other way anyway

Occams razor...
The more assumption you make the more likely you are to be wrong.By cutting everything but "my property " out you get to be less wrong.
Assumtions god exists could be wrong and Morality exists could be wrong.SO get rid of them and you are in a more solid foundation

I read plenty. Maybe you should try reading something other than an obscure autist who don't need no society

You're trying to spook him. Children are beneficial to their parents for many reasons.

You dont want kids so don't have them, you're not spooked in that instance. If he listens to you despite wanting kids, he will be spooked.

Speaking Turkish you damn illegal alien!

Sure, that's why you've managed to relate revolution to a fella who isn't remotely related to the bullshit you're trying to push. If you've read any of my previous comments they've already visited what you're trying to claim and established the case is otherwise.

He's not.

Spook is just old-speak for 'social construct'. While they may not be real in a materialist sense, they are real enough that they have real world effects. Really if spookposters practiced what they preach they'd all be positivists/objectivists concerned only with what is tangible and objectively exists. Anybody mixing postmodernism/Hegelian dialectics with Stirner is contradicting themselves.

nej din apa

>And you specifically care because?

I don't want my species to go extinct because of some 19th century memester

Dont take what i said seriously

i was and am tired bored and my browser keeps crashing randomly so annoyed too and im going to sleep

that's not an argument at all. at best you can take it as an axiom

He also talks about possessive ideas and use, unlike what you're trying to relate him to. I don't think that max would disagree with you that these things have effects. The whole point is denying them the ability to have an effect on you.

>Positivist
>Objectiviist
>Individual, who talks about the ego, and the own (The person, their subjective reality) somehow needs to become a collectivist, not a individualist

u wot

Semantics senpai

Warum müsstest du mich wütend machen Kuk Svede.

>Children are beneficial to their parents for many reasons.

Debatable. If the resources and time spent on raising children (and the whole working towards acquiring a fit mate) were spent by the parent on other more beneficial activities, he'd most likely end up being far more self-sufficient (see: wealthy) than the alternative of having that resource drain "care" for him for his final 5 or so years.

>I don't want my species to go extinct because of some 19th century memester

But I don't get this. Literally why do you care? What happens if they aren't extinct after you die? Even more, you know well enough that you're only delaying the inevitable - having them go extinct anyway because no system can exist forever in this Universe

>But turks and pakis will conquer my nation in 100 years >:^(

Why would that even matter to your decaying flesh?

way to ignore the point you stupid rape baby

>everything is a spook let's not do anything

Then let's fucking nuke ourselves and get it over with. Stirner is nihilism on steroids, fucking hell

Far from what he's implying

Not giving a shit about what you do not value =/= blow up everything.

The need to be right is a spook, being right is not.

Hue

Yeah there were multiple accounts from his contemporiaries, education and employment records and his salty wife.

>Spook is just old-speak for 'social construct'.

No it isnt, its a social construct we hold above ourselves. Stirner doesnt say that we can/should abolish anything just because it is abstract, only that we should treat it as our property.

>Really if spookposters practiced what they preach they'd all be positivists/objectivists concerned only with what is tangible and objectively exists.

Forcing yourself to conform to an ideological dogma is as spooky as it gets. Christ was an Egoist in the Stirnerian just as much as the hedonist or the willing housewife

>Not giving a shit about what you do not value
>what you do not value

And what if you value having a family, does it stop being a spook?

>
Debatable. If the resources and time spent on raising children (and the whole working towards acquiring a fit mate) were spent by the parent on other more beneficial activities, he'd most likely end up being far more self-sufficient (see: wealthy) than the alternative of having that resource drain "care" for him for his final 5 or so years.

People like you are exactly who he was mocking in his book. Those who only see spookiness in the religious but go on to make new Gods out of reason and logic.

The individual alone determines if having children is worthwhile or not.

...

It's your value. It isn't a spook. A spook is a possesive idea. As long it comes from "I want to fuck and have babies" and not "I HAVE TO SECURE THE FUTURE OF THE WHITE RACE BECAUSE MUH OBLIGIATIONS" then it's literally nothing. Fuck and have children.

>The individual alone determines if having children is worthwhile or not.

Fucking spot on man
Have a cat

Working for a boss is in your self interest if you're unable to employ yourself.

>Working for a boss is in your self interest if you're unable to employ yourself.

Or you are unable to take control of his resources or pressure the state into forcing the buisness man to pay better NEETbux

>I'm in favour of full automation and basic income.

Which is perfectly in line with Stirners thought

So basically Stirner wanted to make life as boring as possible, got it

What a fucking piss poor argument, kill yourself lad

Its opposite actually, his philosophy can be ground down to beeee yourself or dont lie to yourself.

Sacrificing yourself to interests that your own is the way to live a boring and sad life.

>no abstract ideas or goals greater than yourself otherwise you're a silly willy who likes spooks

I think I'll pass

Adrian de Wiart and Ernst Yunger were Egoist as was Christ and many other people who have sacrificed their own lives and health

>Is so fucking boring that he doesn't have goals he can entertain
wew lad

>bane of Marx
>lefty

Smh desu senpai

But that's Pushkin

Early Marx was spooked to death with humanism. Late Marx was much more level-headed. If he had lived a little longer i bet he would have given up on communism altogether and become a radical individualist.

I love the Stirner memes. His book was slightly autistic but he was right.

The very will to continue living is illogical and instinct-driven. Your point?

Basically life is meaningless to these faggots. They think they know, but they don't. They're just depressed.

Cool

Bakunin was more of Marx's foe, and very prescient

Spooks are essentially any ideas that you can cling to that is abstract. For example, nationality, honor, pride, race, power.
Everything being a spook is a meme, but even memes are spook.

To Striner, the only thing that exists and matters is your Ego (basically your consciousness) and everything around you is your property that you can grab and control.

It's essentially impossible to refute because it relies on the only axiom that your consciousness is the only thing that exist and matters. Everything that moves it to think certain ideas are spook. If you think you have a duty to anything or anyone or any idea, it's a spook.
Should you respect your ancestors? No, that's a spook.
Respect your culture? Culture is a spook.
Patriotism? Spook.

Spirits is essentially humanizing causal events in the world. Spirits are spooks but spooks are not spirits.

I don't see how that conflicts. Working for your boss is in your best interest if you deem it so out of all your possible options. If you are your own boss and are acting not out of self interest but to impress someone or whatever, then it does conflict.

Striner bitches about proprety right that people can just up and leave. Which is true when people have no obligation to do jack shit, but if their ego lets them work for their boss to acquire property and wealth, that's up to their own ego to decide.

>Life has meaning
HAHAHA NICE SPOOK YOU FUCKING FAGGOT

>You think you want to have children, but it's actually an illogical instinct pushing you to have that desire and feel like shit if you don't achieve it
Yes. Thats why you have children to step your instinct from making you feel bad about not having children. You cannot truly ignore the biological urge to have children and be happy in the same way that a starving man will never be truly satisfied.

That's stupid. Living is not eternal suffering.
So long as life is enjoyable, there is meaning in living, even if there is no inherent meaning in life.

What about class? Is that a spook? Why wouldn't the battle for property just turn into a bloodbath?

>So long as life is enjoyable, there is meaning in living

No. There is pleasure in living. Meaning =/= pleasure. You can have a meaningful yet unpleasant life (say mother Teresa).

The meaning behind having children is simply egotistical, even if people do not understand it.
Leaving behind your genes is not done for your gene's sake, but for yourself. You leave a part of yourself to live on as a legacy. Antinatalism argues that creating life is just dooming a person to eternal suffering, so it would be better to not give birth to children and save that person to weight of living.
So parents are essentially condemning a lifetime of suffering to a person for their own selfish insecurities of dying.

Class is a spook. High, medium, low class. Those are spooks. The reality is how much money a person has which forms hierarchies.

>Why wouldn't the battle for property just turn into a bloodbath?
Of course. The state of nature is a real thing, that's why we have the state to reduce the battle of property.

I will agree that there is no meaning in hedonism except to perpetuate itself but that does not mean that enjoying life is not meaningful.

>meaningful yet unpleasant life
Can you? Is there meaning in being a homeless person your entire life and having done nothing or enjoyed your life in any way? Although it depends whether your unpleasant life defines who you are.

Mother Teresa comes from the pure altruistic perspective of throwing your life away for nothing.

>Leaving behind your genes is not done for your gene's sake, but for yourself. You leave a part of yourself to live on as a legacy.

I think in most cases people are not that articulate explaining why they want a kid. In many case it's at least semi-instinctual rather than an explicit reasoning to leave a legacy. We're still animals first.

Just because people cannot properly express themselves doesn't mean that there is no logical reason for it. There more I think about it, there more I notice that people seek spookish reasons for creating children. Either to rekindle love, to have children to express the union of their love, because it was an hedonistic accident or because they want to feel more complete as a person.
Regardless of the reason, people never think of their future children, only themselves. This is why parents are proud of their accomplishments. Normally, you'd think that it wouldn't matter since that child isn't you. Their accomplishments are not your own, but that's how it's perceived.

>We're still animals
Humans consider themselves above the laws of causality and nature. Although just because we consider ourselves like that does not mean we're not rooted in some nature but that we should fight against those naturalistic urges.

he was fucking wrong because i say so mfer, what are any of you gonna do about it?

I can claim your brain as my property and carve ''SPOOK'' in caps on it.

They seek spookish reasons to rationalize an instinct.

>we should fight against those naturalistic urges.
>should

But why? Is that not a spook of sort? Would it not be more pleasurable to give in to our urges?

A spook is also a spook in of itself. Deciding that something is a spook and therefore not a reason to do it or associate yourself with that idea is a spook.

>Would it not be more pleasurable to give in to our urges?
Depends on what you value.

>I AM SILLY comics
wew

>Of course. The state of nature is a real thing, that's why we have the state to reduce the battle of property.

Sounds painful. I just want a comfy cosy society.