What are your spooks?

And can you justify having them?

I bet you can't even justify the concept of "private property."

>inb4 spooked anons think private property refers to your clothes, house, toothbrush, etc

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_egoists
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Let it all go! Says the person with nothing!
Give up your tax dollars!
Says the person who pays no income tax
Sage unto thee!

Private property is the thoughts I haven't thunk yet.

You can't fool me user I've done a tour of Amsterdam.

>implying I'm a communist

Communism itself is oppressive to the individual, and the concept of "democratic ownership of labor" is just as ridiculous as one person owning MY property.

spooks are a spook

come at me

take that back, aussie

calling something shallow is not itself inherently shallow

shallowness is a spook

Okay, I'll bite.

My spook is called "earning a living" since nobody really dies.

People die all the time, the shallow concept of "earning a living" is that it is judged by the standards of others, or more specifically, the CONCEPT of other people's standards.

In truth, everything you do earns your living, and only your opinion of your living is what is true to you.

Greetings property. Why do I have to justify anything to property? Your desire for an explanation is nothing more than a spook.

This property gets it... not that it matters to me, the creative nothing of which no word or phrase can properly describe.

Could someone photoshop the Sheeiiiiit guy in there?

observations end and begin haphazardly.
but the observer is permanent.

my fear is to be caught in a world of idiots clambering over eachother to chase meal tickets, when the "dark ages" had serfs fully in control of their own food resources and means of production.

This what we have is already darker than the dark ages. I know there will be years of starvation, and years of fruitfulness ahead. But there's no end to the days, and you will soon grow as sarcastic as me.

the true red pill is realizing feudalism never ended, it only evolved

you already live in the world of your nightmares, the spooks only prevent you from seeing this. Already the "idiots" clamber over each other for meal tickets, and the future will hold many people fighting for liberties that today we do not miss.

>spooked anons
Jesus Christ, this is how commies accept communism? Denying objective reality? Everything is a concept? Race and gender are social constructs too, huh?

Get your black pill bullshit out of here

>another spooked user who thinks Stirner was a communist

realizing that your life is controlled by spooks is liberating to the individuals' ego, not detrimental

your spook is the denial of nonspooks

name a single non-shallow concept that i have ousted as a spook

>individuals' ego
Psychology is a Jewish invention. You anarchists are retarded. Without a cultural and public commitment to an explicit value system, humans just won't cooperate. Communism and anarchism fail because they refuse to acknowledge natural hierarchy. Those at the top and bottom need a social contract; government. The dirty fucking hippies in the 1960's learned this shit the hard way. Like minded commune dwellers came together in peace and love, but the shit didn't work. One or two strong minded personalities always rose to the top. Shit needs to be accomplished in life, and in the communes, dirty lazy hippies didn't do what needed to be done, so one person usually gave instructions, or the commune would starve, or dissolve from disease. These communes don't exist today because the idea is half baked and stupid. Dirty anarchism is a poor man's communism, and will fail just like the '60's fucking hippy communes.

Stirner has to be one of my favorite memes from this site

Individualism and ego are spooks. Spooks are spooks.

What I do I do because it is my nature. If this brings me to suffer the act of caring then I shall suffer it without regret.

>Psychology is a Jewish invention
It is Jewish-controlled but there is nothing inherently subversive about studying how the human mind operates. Jews are just as spooked as the rest.

>Without a cultural and public commitment to an explicit value system, humans just won't cooperate
Humans already do not cooperate, and many of these values are spooks.

>Communism and anarchism fail because they refuse to acknowledge natural hierarchy
Natural hierarchy can arise in an anarchist state, and no post-left anarchist will doubt the existence of natural laws.

>The dirty fucking hippies in the 1960's learned this shit the hard way. Like minded commune dwellers came together in peace and love, but the shit didn't work. One or two strong minded personalities always rose to the top. Shit needs to be accomplished in life, and in the communes, dirty lazy hippies didn't do what needed to be done, so one person usually gave instructions, or the commune would starve, or dissolve from disease. These communes don't exist today because the idea is half baked and stupid.
I'm not a hippie or a communist, so...

>Dirty anarchism is a poor man's communism

Egoism directly contradicts and disproves communism.

me too

>individualism and ego are spooks
>but I will do what I want because I want to do it

You're almost there, you just have to realize that some of your wants aren't actually yours at all.

spook is spook

spooks sounds retared

nice 7s

a spook is an empty concept that people falsely believe is important or necessary, usually for the benefit of those who control society but not always

simply recognizing them, and then eventually breaking free of them, is a huge benefit to the individual

>You're almost there, you just have to realize that some of your wants aren't actually yours at all.

Already know about such things, and have long since put away common concepts of morality to know myself. And I will in principal no more act to please Stirner's ghost than I will anyone else's.

>Humans already do not cooperate, and many of these values are spooks.
Humans cooperate when those values are re established through war or hardship. Over time the values and institutions are eroded by lefty politics, until a new war is needed to kill the commies and anarchists.

stills is retared

then you please Stirner's ghost more than you will ever know, if what you say is true

explain all the useless wars that plagued Europe's history before WWI, then. Those were the nationalist causes that Stirner (and many others) opposed vehemently because they were beyond pointless and many individuals died for literal spooks

spooked

says the ego

>explain all the useless wars
Wars are not useless. Quit being a faggot. Violence will always exist. Institutional violence will always exist as well. Unless you genetically engineer all humans to be weak, stupid, and incapable of violence. Then they wouldn't be human anymore.

Stirner is anti-life. Saged and hidden

>wars are not useless

Not INHERENTLY, but many of the conflicts plaguing Europe were.

Can you justify this whole list?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

Grow up. Are the current wars the US is fighting in the middle east good? Were the world wars good? Was the FIRST world war a good thing? Brother killing brother for no reason?

>Violence will always exist.
I never said it wouldn't. Avoiding unnecessary violence is what I'm advocating. Do you start fights with everyone you see in the street? If not, then by your own definition you are a faggot.

And either way, by my definition you are a spook.

>anti-life
explain, if you can, spook

Stiner is spook

i wish we could nuke the spooks

>Brother killing brother for no reason
You grow up. Your inaccurate statements reveal nothing but virtue signaling. You don't have the intellectual breadth to come to terms with the actions of the past. They had a reason and you have no right to shit post on the internet in 2017 about historical motivations. You narcissist lefty piece of shit pushing your degenerate narrow minded values onto everyone, including historical populations. Go fuck yourself you self righteous prick.

Can someone PLEASE make a merchant stirner?!?

>being so autistic that you don't intuitively grasp the concept of private property
you're not fooling anybody, jamal. nobody's that autistic.

Sure.
I accept the presupposition that existence, and continuing to exist, is preferable to non-existence
Therefore, if I accept the above, I should do things that contribute to my surviving and thriving so as to continue existing
Being a part of a group makes me better at surviving and thriving thanks to the division of labor, and therefore contributes to my original presupposition
Therefore anything which harms the group will also harm my ability to survive and thrive, and should be opposed
Homosexuality, alcoholism, substance abuse, gender confusion, communism, anarchy, adultery, all of the above and everything else Sup Forums considers degenerate either decreases my ability to survive and thrive as an individual, or decreases the ability of the group to survive.

It doesn't even matter if this existence is an illusion or if I'm a brain in a vat, or any other meme-y thought experiment, because acting as if I exist in the real world is more helpful to my surviving and thriving and is the most pragmatic course of action to take.

If you don't think that existence is preferable to non-existence, then I suggest you kill yourself, and kindly fuck off.

>but there is nothing inherently subversive about studying how the human mind operates
Whew

you are related to every organism.
We are mutated replicas of the same organism endlessly recreating itself in a new image.
Its all you.
We reincarnate ourselves in this hell.
Everything is suffering , every action is a result of suffering .
Every breath and movement is a result of not being content, we always need , if we were content we would not move.
Everything is suffering , to reproduce is to reincarnate and continue the suffering , this is the trick that keeps us in hell.
To end suffering and escape the hell we must realise that we are all life and it must end.
We must destroy all life in the universe.
only when all life is extinguished shall we end suffering.

>world war one was NOT brother killing brother
It objectively WAS, Europe was catastrophically divided. Give me a good reason why Germans had to kill Brits, and vice versa, simply because Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serb?

>They had a reason and you have no right to shit post on the internet in 2017 about historical motivations.

They had a SHIT reason and you know it. The average European sent in to fight a war "that would be over by Christmas" but ended up lasting half a decade and resulting in millions of deaths of both soldiers and civilians, and setting the stage for an even more catastrophic war a mere 20 years later for basically the same reasons, but better propaganda.

Can you in your own words even BEGIN to justify the world wars, let alone any of the other wars in that link I provided?

...

Ok Albegensian... I thought the pope waged a crusade against your ilk.

>he thinks property relates only to real estate
Get a job already lard ass.

Better question is: what isn't a spook?

anime

>justify the world wars
Duty.

You fucking lefty narcissist idiots wouldn't know anything about sacrifice. Wrapped up in your own mind and silly thoughts. Thinking everyone has silly thoughts.

Sure, but can you justify it?
Being a part of a group makes me better at surviving and thriving thanks to the division of labor, and therefore contributes to my original presupposition
Nothing about egoism speaks against being part of a group, only being part of a group that hurts you or decreases your individual power.

>Homosexuality, alcoholism, substance abuse, gender confusion, communism, anarchy, adultery, all of the above and everything else Sup Forums considers degenerate either decreases my ability to survive and thrive as an individual, or decreases the ability of the group to survive.
Post-Left Anarchy does not decrease your groups ability to survive, unless it is a bad group.

Nothing about egoism is anti-life, and you're suffering from spooks that make you think any and all groups are good. Many actions taken by groups lead to death (or that non-existence you speak of) so merely being a member is not enough.

Curiosity is part of the human spirit, there is surely a way to use psychology for good.

>you are related to every organism.
Maybe.
>reincarnate
How can there be reincarnation if populations grow and change, even among entire phylums of life?
>hell
Nothing inherently states this is hell.
>Everything is suffering, every action is a result of suffering .
The existence of pleasure disproves this.
>Everything is suffering , to reproduce is to reincarnate and continue the suffering , this is the trick that keeps us in hell.
unbacked assumption
>We must destroy all life in the universe.
another unbacked assumption

it relates to the means of production, communists however have the wrong idea about it.

cute! CUTE!

>(((duty)))

Does a US soldier have a DUTY to fight wars for Israel, too? Was each European nation doing their duty to protect their populations and their rights by waging these wars?

The fact that you're giving simplistic responses that don't even BEGIN to address the questions I'm asking implies you don't really believe in what you're saying either.

>stirntard: HURR DURR IM MENTALLY 14 AND NOTHING EXISTS OR IS REAL OR MATTERS XD

>Adult: Wow, that's a bold claim. Do you have any empirical evidence supporting it?

>stirnigger: UMMM EVIDENCE IS A SPOOK XD

>Adult: What is this spook thing you keep talking about? Are you autistic?

>stirnfag: LALALA SPOOOOOK IM NOT LISTENING

And then stirntards went back to being unemployed and having nothing.

>t. didn't read this thread at all, let alone any of Stirner's works

>means of production
No it does not. Consumer goods have no relation to the means of production nor do personal legal rights for example.

>Communal means of production
Why not acknowledge you're a filthy Communist?

Nice argument, faggot.
Bet you can't justify your beliefs to your wife's son, cuckboy.

>BEGIN to address the questions I'm asking implies you don't really believe in what you're saying either
Your struggle with political circumstances is blinding you to the dismissal of your entire argument, in the ancient philosophy of duty. You aren't the first human to ask how brothers can kill. There are answers, but you lack the education that would preclude your premise. It's not your fault. Modern education doesn't teach anything worthwhile.

You say >spooks like it's a bad thing.

Spooks are good for you.

consumer goods are a direct result of the means of production, and workers have personal legal rights, do they not?

>say you're a communist
>even though I have not once advocated for communism

again, egoists are opposed to communism as it is just as spooked as capitalism

Sure, not all groups are likely to contribute to one's surviving and thriving, but being a part of a hard-working, highly skilled tribe of which you have a lot of genetic similarity to will increase your odds of surviving and thriving. Being a part of a butt-buddies meth-junkies orgy meetup, will not.

And there are cases when a slight decrease in your personal power will greatly empower the ability of the group to survive and thrive, and in turn, increase your ability to survive and thrive. Take taxes for example. For a relatively small personal cost, the economics of scale means that I am able to have access to resources that I otherwise wouldn't. My local gym for example, was built (in part) using tax payer money. It was a pain at the time, but I wouldn't be able to afford it on my own, and I now get the benefit of everyone pooling together resources so that I am able to have a safe, clean place to do my squats and bench press. You're right though, there are cases where being part of a group is detrimental, and that is up to the individual to make that cost/benefit analysis. We probably agree more than we disagree tbqhwym8. Private property is another concept that ensures individual and communal surviving and thriving. Assigning ownership decreases the amount of conflicts and waste compared to when property is not privatized. If dissolving private property was more effective at ensuring individual and communal surviving and thriving, communism and socialism wouldn't be such shitshows whenever they are tried.

You are advocating the abolishing of property no?

Why are you trying to argue otherwise? That is being intellectually dishonest.

>not a single attempt to address my questions, part 3

Tell me WHY a US soldier has the DUTY to fight wars for Israel, spook. Tell me WHY Europeans died needlessly in trenches in the name of nations they weren't even a part of.

>You aren't the first human to ask how brothers can kill.

Not "how" but WHY in this specific circumstances.

>There are answers, but you lack the education that would preclude your premise
I think you meant to type "there are answers but I'm too scared to look them up, let alone tell someone else."

>Modern education doesn't teach anything worthwhile.
They don't even teach Marx properly in modern education, let alone Stirner.

Pull your head out of your ass and admit that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that the only reason you believe in (((unquestioning duty))) is because you swallowed the nationalist spook all the way down your esophagus.

This time, try writing a response that is longer than a couple sentences.

Nice try, but you aren't holding the creative nothing back any more.

>stirnfag: Woah... I'm 14 and I just realized that we're just some monkeys waging war on a little rock flying through space... This disproves morality so now I'll just start shooting and stabbing people... If I don't kill everyone around me, I'm totally spooked.

>Adult: Hush, you retarded child.

>stirnfag: I don't have to listen to you, dad! Family is a spook!

>Adult: That's it, no more internet for you.

>stirnfag: S-sorry dad! *cries*

This is your life.

>>not a single attempt to address my questions, part 3
Because your questions are fucking stupid and begin with false modern/lefty/virtue signaling horse shit that no one cares about, and thinks you're an idiot for typing them out.

Do your parents know your gay?
Get it yet?

The aim of the egoist is not to destroy groups that assist the individual, but to help the individual realize what qualities of a group are beneficial to them, and which qualities are not. I am sure we agree a lot.

criticizing private property does not make you a communist, it makes you a skeptic. In reality, all property belongs to you (me). Anyone who believes in the "right" to own property believes in an illusion. Property is only taken by might.

The end goal is to stop being ruled by others, regardless of any authority's claims to property rights.

>baseless assumptions and strawmen, the post
>family is a spook
This has never once been said, except for maybe Stephan Molyneux. Who is, coincidentally, a right-wing libertarian.

>not a single attempt to address my questions, part 4
If what you said was true, you would have the easiest time explaing why each was stupid. But you don't, it's like you don't want me to understand your way of thinking at all... or maybe you just can't address any criticism without calling me a "lefty virtue signaller."

Would you be able to tell someone who died in the world wars that their death was justified, then? Especially if they got to see the result of their death? Europe filled with liberals cucking out for refugees?

yes. you get what you work for/inherit. bam, justified.

>Feeling a sense of (((duty))) towards your family, who are just random people who happen to be related to you

LOL you don't think family is a spook? You're so spooked. Little spooked bitch boi.

...

>you get what your work for/inherit
But that's a spook. To think that someone "deserves" their labor is an illusion.

In truth, you only get what you have the power to take. This applies to both the worker AND the boss.

This is apt, the man is chained by capitalism but commit suicide by communism.

...

Right, and I don't think many people would advocate for being a part of groups which are a net detriment to their ability to survive and thrive. My point is that sometimes, it is worthwhile for the individual to sacrifice for the greater good of the collective of which they are a part, so that the group/collective is able to survive and thrive, which in turn will increase the individual's ability to survive and thrive, moreso than if they did not.

For example, if I am the breadwinner of a family, and I have the opportunity to work some overtime so that I am able to buy presents for my children, what should I do? Well, if I take a narrow/short-sighted view of things, I won't take the offer, because I will be temporarily inconvenienced/uncomfortable. However, if I take a slightly longer term view, I can imagine that my temporary sacrifice will enable me to buy presents for my children, which will bring a greater amount of pleasure/personal satisfaction to me than if I opted out.
> lol why should I care about my family lolololol
Well they're an extension of you, are they not?The same principle is extended to my community/neighborhood. Sure, if I shovel my disabled neighbor's walk, I will be cold and tired and out ~20 minutes of labor, but the satisfaction I will get when he thanks me for helping him will outweigh the costs.

The problem with a meme-y "take everything for yourself lololol" is that if you extrapolate the likely scenarios to what would happen if everyone did that, you will end up worse off than if you privatize property. Its all well and dandy to believe that everything is your property when you're raping a 10/10 qt, but when Jamal bends you over and starts tearing up your boipukki, then you're going to wish that you had opted for a different system.

>family is not a spook
>no wait, you said it wasn't, haha now it is a spook

this is the last (you) you'll get from me, spook

>Would you be able to tell someone who died in the world wars that their death was justified, then?
Wouldn't need to. Who says they aren't justified? Because some faggot in 2017 thinks so?
>Europe filled with liberals
Soldiers of the past did their duty. It's a failure of the present to not recognize sacrifice, and to sacrifice in turn. Dirty liberals are weak and want benefits and free gibs, this is no different. Inter generational gibs. But feel good through virtue signaling to mask the cowardice.

>In truth
Truth is a spook. Nothing is inherently true, everything is just made up definitions random guys created over time.

Wow, you seriously believe things? So spooked.

Oh, sorry, did I expose a flaw in your teenage nihilistic views? Did I make you contradict yourself by saying nation, morality, god, and personal property are spooks, but somehow family isn't?

Ohhh that sucks!

>My point is that sometimes, it is worthwhile for the individual to sacrifice for the greater good of the collective of which they are a part, so that the group/collective is able to survive and thrive, which in turn will increase the individual's ability to survive and thrive, moreso than if they did not.

I would argue that it is not a true sacrifice if it benefits the individual in the long run, it's just a different form of helping yourself.

>The problem with a meme-y "take everything for yourself lololol"
This is a common misunderstanding with egoism, it does not advocate taking everything for yourself. It simply shows how a lot of concepts are hollow, which frees you up to pursue what you want. If you still want to pursue these concepts, you certainly can. It's just that the most hollow concepts will be abandoned. Family isn't going anywhere, due to both its societal and biological importance.

>but when Jamal bends you over and starts tearing up your boipukki, then you're going to wish that you had opted for a different system.
Well, this rape can happen under any other system, and in fact the system itself does nothing to prevent it. "Everything is yours" philosophy teaches how the only thing that matters is your power to take what you want, and if you can't defend yourself from a rapist... then you can't defend yourself from a rapist.

The only law is physics
All other laws are a choice.

>Who says they aren't justified? Because some faggot in 2017 thinks so?

You're right, whenever anyone discusses the world wars they usually go "they were fucking awesome, hope they happen again too!"

>soldiers of the past did their duty
Hans from Germany had the DUTY to kill Nigel from the UK, because Gavrilo Princip (Serbia) got lucky and killed Archduke Ferdinand (Austria)?

You sound ridiculous. you keep saying they did their duty, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking WHY their duty was to kill each other in this war. I don't think you have much of a concept of the gravity world wars.

patrician, right there.

*gravity OF THE world wars

Well if the end result of a Stirner-esque approach is to abandon the most hollow concepts currently floating around the idea-space in favor of those ideas and institutions which best promote individual and collective surviving and thriving, it seems to me that you're going to end up supporting heterosexual marriage, some form of religion, some form of limited ethno-nationalism, and private property, because those are the forms of societal organization which have proven themselves to be the most conducive to human happiness over the long-term.
> I would argue that it is not a true sacrifice if it benefits the individual in the long run, it's just a different form of helping yourself.
I've had a similar thought, but I mean, if someone gives all their money away to charity, and gets such a dopamine rush that they consider themselves to be better off, are they selfish? I don't really know, and its a tough question, because it raises the issue of whether or not true altruism is possible. Am I not considered altruistic if I donate to charity to make myself feel good?
> Well, this rape can happen under any other system, and in fact the system itself does nothing to prevent it. "Everything is yours" philosophy teaches how the only thing that matters is your power to take what you want, and if you can't defend yourself from a rapist... then you can't defend yourself from a rapist.
Right, but compare the possibility of getting raped in a society without a state apparatus compared to a society with a state apparatus. If you are living in some kind of an-cap heaven/hell, there will be no one to help you if Jamal is able to sneak up behind you. In a society with a state apparatus/collective identity, then you would be able to call for help, call the police, which on the whole, would decrease your likelihood of getting raped by the BBC (and therefore improve your ability to survive and thrive. The Swedes may disagree, but w/e.)

>You're right, whenever anyone discusses the world wars they usually go "they were fucking awesome, hope they happen again too!
Are you new to /pol faggot?

>supporting marriage, religion, ethnonationalism, private property
It's definitely possible, if not inevitable, if those are the best concepts for an individual to support. Personally I agree with those being the best, but I welcome and encourage criticism.

>whether or not true altruism is possible
haha I'm just going to call altruism a spook, keeps it simple

>an-cap
Not to defend an-caps, but they'd probably have some sort of anti-rape bodyguard service available. These services would likewise exist if rape was still a problem.

You should look up Unions of Egoists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_egoists


Are YOU new? Hitler's loss is seen as a bad thing, and everyone universally agrees about the (((suspicious causes))) of the first world war.

The only thing people here want to repeat is the holocaust.

>The only thing people here want to repeat is the holocaust
Faggot

Where are these people who have never read Stirner getting all these assumptions about Stirner?

...

I'll take a stab at this. Personally, I think the world wars were a terrible mistake, but in theory, going to war for your country/group is not.

If you are being attacked by a foreign enemy who has a desire to kill you/enslave you/take your stuff, are you better off trying to fight them yourself, or banding together to fight them? Obviously you have a better shot of joining a group, only the most autistic LARPers honestly think that they would be better off initiating guerilla warfare by themselves against an armed, hostile force (except for that meme-y white death guy with a million kills). You could argue that your best course of action to ensure your maximized surviving/thriving would be to just run away, but that doesn't solve the problem, because the foreign/enemy group can always come after you. You're 100% chance of getting fucked if you try to fight them on your own, you're 50% chance of getting fucked if you go fight them, and running away means you're 100% fucked once they kill everyone else and come after you.

However, I don't believe this was the reality during the world wars, so w/e.
> haha I'm just going to call altruism a spook, keeps it simple
Well I think it raises an interesting point, because if it is the case that behaving 'altruistically' and morally is in one's own self-interest, then we can recast all the right-wing arguments in terms of personal interest, which might be a somewhat unique take on right-wing politics, considering that left-wing politics tries to tell people that absolute individualism is in your best interest. But what if that is not the case? What if the optimized way of conducting yourself in the world so that you will maximally survive and thrive is a mix of individualism and collectivism?

For example, if I was telling my kid about drugs, I wouldn't say
> DRUGS ARE SINFUL REEEEEEE
Rather, I would explain to him the financial, physical, emotional, relational and mental costs of doing recreational drugs

t. Chaim

I know, right? It's almost like he was on to something!

There's nothing wrong with fighting for your nation as long as the cause is legitimate. The problem is that most wars, including the Vietname War, world wars, etc, have been fought for little justifiable reason. Also, the White Death was a Finnish nationalist so that does actually help your point.

>left-wing politics tries to tell people that absolute individualism is in your best interest
Well, that depends. Communists hold everything up to the collective, so they're not individualists. There's identity politics in the "progressive" left, but they're fags and spooks for believing in such things.

>What if the optimized way of conducting yourself in the world so that you will maximally survive and thrive is a mix of individualism and collectivism?
Union of Egoists does sound like its up your alley, but there's similar concepts.

>Dirty Commie faggot, calling someone a jew
Look faggot, there's no way /pol wants it to happen AGAIN
>AGAIN
>AGAIN
Get off /pol idiot

...

what a (((suspiciously spooked))) comment... go back to /r/the_donald cuck

Absolutely, I think most expansionist wars have been fought for NO justifiable reason, and almost always results in a decreased ability for individuals and groups to survive and thrive. The Cold War and its associated proxy-wars are an interesting case-set though, because one could argue that if the Western countries had NOT fought against the spread of communism, they would have been at risk of communism gaining a foothold in the West, which would DEFINITELY decrease the ability of individuals and groups to survive. I suppose it is similar to the Hoppean argument that someone attempting to install communism in your collective/union/society should be physically removed, because they threaten your survival/thriving. Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria all the oil wars however, have been completely unjustifiable, and seem to have been fought for the benefit of Israel and Jew's surviving/thriving, which makes me so fucking mad because I end up paying for it in the end. Jews get your own armies reeeeeeeee.

> Well, that depends. Communists hold everything up to the collective, so they're not individualists. There's identity politics in the "progressive" left, but they're fags and spooks for believing in such things.
I should have clarified, I was thinking specifically about an-caps and lolbertarians. Authoritarians are fucked too though, because the optimized way of being in the world is a mix of individualism and collectivism, specifically along ethnic/genetic lines.

>what a (((suspiciously spooked))) comment... go back to /r/the_donald cuck
Coming from a faggot commie that wants to repeat the Holocaust?
Now I know you lefties are so caught up in your ego and ideas that you don't even know which board your posting on.

...

based leaf

not gay, nor am I a communist.

>The only thing people here want to repeat is the holocaust.

>The history of the world, whose shaping properly belongs altogether to the Caucasian race, seems until now to have run through two Caucasian ages, in the first of which we had to work out and work off our innate negroidity; this was followed in the second by Mongoloidity (Chineseness), which must likewise be terribly made an end of. Negroidity represents antiquity, the time of dependence on things (on cocks’ eating, birds’ flight, on sneezing, on thunder and lightning, on the rustling of sacred trees, and so forth); Mongoloidity the time of dependence on thoughts, the Christian time. Reserved for the future are the words, “I am the owner of the world of things, I am the owner of the world of mind.”

>To this day the Jews, those precocious children of antiquity, have got no farther; and with all the subtlety and strength of their prudence and understanding, which easily becomes master of things and forces them to obey it, they cannot discover spirit, which takes no account whatever of things.
>The Christian has spiritual interests, because he allows himself to be a spiritual man; the Jew does not even understand these interests in their purity, because he does not allow himself to assign no value to things.

See, Sup Forums? Stirner was redpilled!

Pleasure meme-ing with you, friend.

...