Spook thread

Post spooky ghost stories ITT

>Race
>Identity
>Hard work
>nationalism
>property
>laziness

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pBMTccP1hY4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I love this meme

You forgot the biggest spook

>Dialectical materialism

...

...

Gender.

>make sure you're willing to confront the sacred the cows of society! they're spooks! They're often run contrary to your self interests!
>I think the races are unequal and that women should be subservient to men
>Racist! Sexist! Xenophobe! Misogynist!


really mobilizes my macadamias

race is actually a biological reality though

explain

HOOYMAN NATUR

>implying
Race isn't real my friend. Genetics don't work how you think they do.

Biggest spook of all:
>arguments

Daily reminder Stirner created the concept of spooks to cope with his cuckoldry.

The proper reponce to

>I think the races are unequal and that women should be subservient to men

is hahahah. Implying gender and race are real. Nice spook nerd

I bet you think girls can have pensies too.

Why are numales so easy to psyop into denying basic reality?

Daily reminder cuckoldry is a spook

...

Gender isn't real. Theres no such thing as girls or boys

Stirner created
>Spooks
to troll Marx and his idea of Dialectical "Materialism" and specifically class consciousness that would overpower individual needs and desires (or, if you will, the Ego.)

SELF PRIDE
E
L
F

P
R
I
D
E

Thats true.

Hello, leftypol shills.
Are you ready for the oven?

>pride
spooky

Shilling is a spook.

Nah you're thinking of this guy:

'But Marx and Engels would become well known for their fickle and pugnacious approach to fellow socialists who showed insufficient agreement with their own form of socialism. By the late 1840s, they had fallen out with Hess.[3] They mocked him, first behind his back and later openly, and Engels had an affair with Hess's wife.[3] The work of Hess was also criticized in part of The German Ideology by Marx and Engels.[4]'

So basically Stirner is advocating total individualism then?

>spooky
spooky

makes u think.

Only one you should look out for is number one baby.

>having pride in yourself

That's pretty bigoted desu senpai.

Yes. But not anarcho-capitalism sense property is a spook lmao and if I can protect my property then its mine. And if you form a union of egoists that is mutually beneficial then you can work together and take over people's "property"

I will never understand why this fag is popular on /leftypol/. Isn't he an absolute individualist? Why would commies like him?

Because he didn't beleive in property and thought that if you could defend your property then its yours. And if you can't its not.

Because to them, the narrative of "spooks" is equivalent to that of "social construct"

He believed concepts that rightists cling to like identity and nationalism were spooks,

He's primarily followed by Anarcho-Communists

>if you could defend your property then its yours. And if you can't its not.
That seriously sounds like a pretty huge fuck you to any leftist though. It's literally might makes right.

If we glass the Middle East to take all their oil, that would be okay according to Stirner. Human rights is a spook.

what about if I can pay some big guys to guard my property, or the government will send some big guys to stop anyone trying to take my property?

He's an anarchist mostly.

Me on the top right

That's a little too weak. To be your (Stirnerian) property, to properly own it, you must also be capable of giving it away.
You can probably throw away your socks, but you can't throw away your child.

Why haven't all these Egoists moved to Somalia yet? It's a true zero spook society, and who cares if it's filled with primal negroes, race is a spook anyways.

>cling to
You mean create civilization with? Is there a single successful civilization that didn't have an identity or some level of nationalism?

Or is success, science, and wealth a spook too?

Right, but why would anarcho-communists like him? He seems pretty cut-throat with the defend = own shit.

In fact pirates where an example of egotists, even before Stirner was born.

>ghost stories
Man seriously? Even if I did post some of the shit I have seen no one would fucking believe me

But anyways I am posting shit
>Be me
>go to Gettysburg
>be near devils den
>I feel like I was pushed over
>no one there

>later go to picketts charge area
>no one around
>except these "re-enactors"
>they are walking
>they never get closer
>I try to come closer
>at where the fence was
>when I reach the fence area they fall
>go to where they looked liked they fell
>no one there
>nope the fuck outta there


Gettysburg was a fucked experience for me

>Not Spengler
>Not Schmitt
>Not Evola
>Not Herbert Spencer
>A Commie Jew

This doesn't make sense on at least two levels (moving there isn't beneficial (and thus good for the Egoist), and if race doesn't bother, then the "zero spook (whites)" thing would not matter)

Success and wealth definitely are. Science is real but I don't think science works the way you think it does.

So why do lefties hate Ayn Rand and love this spectacled faggot when they seem to be suggesting the same might makes right, put yourself above all else absolute individualism idea
Is there some kind of super complex crucial difference my plebeian mind can't grasp or is just because he was pals with Marx for a while?

>you will never host a halloween party with stirner

t. ilovescience facebook subscriber

Go ahead and name a single society without an identity or some form of nationalism that made significant contribution to scientific progress.

It seems to be because they think spooks = social construct as described.

Why does /lit/ have the shittiest memes?

We don't hate Ayn Rand. You guys have warped her writing to fit your worldview.

Same goes for Adam Smith.

Marx was triggered for life when he met Stirner's philosophy

How is this dude considered a leftycuck if his ideology boils down to might equals right?

Most normies who identify as left wing (bernouts, corbyn supporters, etc) absolutely do.

So Egoists understand Egoism on a societal level is not beneficial but practice in anyways? Seems short sighted.

Because he doesn't believe in nation states, race or gender identitiy at all.

Those are liberals. They're morons.

We're actual leftists

Because that means if the workers kill the boss then its fine for them to run there factory he also didn't believe in the state which means that company owners who get public security to defend them don't really own there stuff. Egoist anarchism would be perfect for a anarcho-communist revolution.

Sure.

But if might equals right, a group of people who form a nationalist nation state and kill weak anarchist individuals while taking their land, they'd be in the right.

You can pay but the government defending you makes the property not yours because the state is a spook.

But a group of commies killing people to seize the means of production would be right as well.

>because the state is a spook
If you can't beat a spook, you don't have any right to it, surely? It's not even real!

that wasn't his point, it made no sense to him to go and fight wars for "nation states"
im pretty sure that with union of egoist he was more for some kind of cooperation than constant compeition
you'd just have to read his book

How is the state a spook if it can arrest you and put you in jail for the rest of your days?

Were ancoms we don't support statists.

Calling things spooks as means of discrediting them is pretty spookish

>altruism for communes
>not a spook

Nationalised industry and education and single payer healthcare are liberal?
but private/ paramilitary organisations still exist, the capitalists without government would be like a lion escaping from a cage

No one's asking for support. We're saying that if you can't beat something that isn't real, you're weak as fuck and don't have any right to "own" its property.

It doesn't make sense to say that people collectivizing and defending property makes sense when it's called anarcho-communism, but not when it's called a nation or state.

So he's just stating the laws of nature. How is this considered to be revolutionary or great?

The state isn't justified and if it protects you its not your own might. Thats what max meant.

>do stuff people want
>they're willing to defend your shit for you in exchange
>not my might
wat

Is it not your might when you create a commune and raid a state? Since it's part of a collective? Or are children and pregnant women expected to wield an AK alongside you?

Wouldn't justifications be a spook?

Because he was one of the few right wingers who realized that capitalists don't just own everything by divine right.

No. The state doesn't need to exist.

so essentially, however things shake out is what's right?
it would be in my interest to let the state protect me though, no? risking my life in a hostile takeover of a factory would be silly

Capitalists are sort of bowed down to by the state so they stop others from expressing there ego.

It would be in your interest but it doesn't allow others to express their ego's he had some problems with the state only serving one class.

youtube.com/watch?v=pBMTccP1hY4

redbeard > stirner

They stop you through force though. If you can't defend your ego's interests, is it really your right to exercise them?

But they don't own it by divine right. They might say that they do, but they really have a very strong system in place to hold their wealth.
But a state is always stronger than an individual,and might is right.
I don't know m8. I'm just trying to understand how might = right is a communist ideal.

class is a spook

this is a good thread

make a spinoza thread later

equality is a spook