Why should I support others having opportunity if it limits my own chances of success? Affirmative action, immigration...

>why is this even a question
Because most people in my country seem to think I should.

which should probably work to your advantage if they practice their beliefs

their loss

How far do you want to take the protectionist argument?
Sounds like you're just a fucking failure despite your superior white genes.

As far as would benefit me.

typical stirntard edglord. take it as far as you want m80.

>edglord
lmao

spooked af

Stirner created the biggest spook that it became real.

Makes you spook.

Because then you get to live a more comfortable life without worrying about an underclass trying to murder you

No I don't, nor would I fear the underclass murdering me.

>racial equality
race is a spook, so the "races" are equal you retard OP
Affirmative action is a surgical societal rule to counterbalance the effects of spooks on "minorities"
Immigration is simply a calculated measure to outrun an aging population (and shrinkage).

>race is a spook
kys

They can also be manifestations of the ego.

You are spooked by thinking economic success is the only form of self actualization, and thinking that everything you want in the world, and the way you will the world to be, all this can be achieved with money, money that you believe you have the ability to appropriate.

Now that's a spook. You're not living life for your own values or according to the will of your own ego. You hare putting the abstract idea of what it means to be successful in your society over your own happiness.

If you genuinely hate niggers and spics, then obviously you wouldn't help them. But you are likely not being a conscious egoist, and are spooked by ideas about niggers and spics that make you the tool of someone else.

By all means, if you prefer a world without that shit, and that's not just because of spooks, then there's no reason you should support them. Other people prefer a world with that shit over the supposed advantages of a world without that shit.

That's egoism, determining for yourself your own values and what you want, and acting in a way to bring that about.

Money worship on the other hand is a spook.

The real answer is that personally, you shouldnd't. But you are socially pressured to, so good luck not.

Socially, you're pressured to think that economic success is the only thing that matters in life.

>I didn't read Stirner

Should have just said.

16 year old babbies who think they understand the world because they read stirner should be kneecapped

>should be
Is that based on your objective morality? Pray tell how you're going to accomplish your goal, my property.

strike that, you haven't read stirner you've just been in stirner threads, got it

Are you trying to spook people into kneecapping stirnerites?

your kind has ruined any discussion we could have had about stirner, and you haven't even read stirner. its honestly impressive

Why should I support and end to policies that increase my chances of success?

because people are petty and if they find out you are having success on the expense of them they will forcibly try to force you down or strike against you

why should you have success and happiness when it limits my own?

>its the accuse people of not reading stirner even though he hasnt read stirner poster

>Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.
inb4 muh spooks - you can find a million examples of this happening in history.
fact is realpolitik doesn't work unless you have a perfect crystal ball so it pays not to be a immoral cunt because one day you'll no longer be top dog and will be dealt with.
even if you don't believe in karma you need to realise people have long memories.

>even if you don't believe in karma you need to realise people have long memories.
Worse, people have shitty memories EXCEPT about the bad stuff.
You can cure cancer but that won't mean shit for your legacy if you were also a child molester.

when all you post is stirner memes can you really blame me?

Well my point was just to remind OP of what was once known as Proverbs 26:27 but is nowadays called "The Law of Unintended Consequences".
But your contribution really fires up my neurons - if all people remember is the bad why try so hard to be good?
I can imagine the day the guy who cures cancer dies (of cancer knowing this world) and people will be bitching about the time he got busted drink driving or for wolf whistling.... do us ungrateful shitty humans actually deserve all the bad that happens to us?

>
>They can also be manifestations of the ego.
>
>You are spooked by thinking economic success is the only form of self actualization, and thinking that everything you want in the world, and the way you will the world to be, all this can be achieved with money, money that you believe you have the ability to appropriate.
>
>Now that's a spook. You're not living life for your own values or according to the will of your own ego. You hare putting the abstract idea of what it means to be successful in your society over your own happiness.
>
>If you genuinely hate niggers and spics, then obviously you wouldn't help them. But you are likely not being a conscious egoist, and are spooked by ideas about niggers and spics that make you the tool of someone else.
>
>By all means, if you prefer a world without that shit, and that's not just because of spooks, then there's no reason you should support them. Other people prefer a world with that shit over the supposed advantages of a world without that shit.
>
>That's egoism, determining for yourself your own values and what you want, and acting in a way to bring that about.
>
>Money worship on the other hand is a spook.

physical comfort and access to material advantages is a spook, that's what i tell to children dying in coltan mines for the coltan of this very smartphone to be cheaply extracted

>physical comfort and access to material advantages is a spook
Those are the only thing your ego wants? Physical comfort and material advantages, whatever that means.

>that's what i tell
Stop trying to spook kids.

>Socially, you're pressured to think that economic success is the only thing that matters in life.

having a filled belly and access to comfortable trinkets with no effort is famously a social pressure, on the other hand we don't have to preach a duty towards other sentients because we naturally care for the piggies we turn into sausage

>having a filled belly and access to comfortable trinkets with no effort
You're implying those would somehow be seriously compromised with the support of these things?

>>Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.
>inb4 muh spooks - you can find a million examples of this happening in history.
>fact is realpolitik doesn't work unless you have a perfect crystal ball so it pays not to be a immoral cunt because one day you'll no longer be top dog and will be dealt with.
>even if you don't believe in karma you need to realise people have long memories.

is karma that thing which naturally led to torture and death those chilean trade unionists who chose class conflict over cooperation? apparently they never learnt the lesson according to which cooperation pays more than conflict

>it's another Veeky Forums assumes that Stirner's egoism is anything like Rand's episode

Seriously, read the fucking book. Stirnerian egoism is more closely related to existentialism than it is objectivism.

Yes.

Sure. And down the laws, down with the state and down with private property. No spook is scared!

>Those are the only thing your ego wants? Physical comfort and material advantages, whatever that means.

of course there is the sheer immaterial enjoyment of telling those portions of mankind who are forced to toil "my user taught me that physical comfort isn't everything and you too should know that"

Does it cause you immense physical comfort to post in this thread?

>>it's another Veeky Forums assumes that Stirner's egoism is anything like Rand's episode
>
>Seriously, read the fucking book. Stirnerian egoism is more closely related to existentialism than it is objectivism.

the "fucking book" explains that duty is a joke and that's all we need to know once we perceive the point of exploiting other sentients and the pointlessness of putting morality and justice over profit

>profit

>Does it cause you immense physical comfort to post in this thread?

i enjoy the arguments of naive people apparently unaware of the daily sight of innocent suffering and "undeserved" (lol) prosperity at the expense of the aforementioned innocent (i especially like those who threaten retaliations much like their ancestors did - "we wil bury you" - before being crushed by imperialistic encirclement)

That's not physical comfort though. That's intellectual stimulation. Getting high on spooks.

>>profit

that's why i prefer the word comfort to the word profit (it hasn't to be capitalistic to be sure), like in sentients being enslaved and slaughtered for our taste buds to enjoy their flesh (or congo children dying in coltan mines for us to comfortably banter on Veeky Forums)

You do realize not everyone is the same as you? That's what it's called the Ego and His Own, not the Ego and How Everyone Should Be Just Like You.

>That's not physical comfort though. That's intellectual stimulation. Getting high on spooks.

physical comfort allows me to comfortably banter meanwhile other sentients are forced to toil in order for others to comfortably enjoy the arguments of naive people without having to toil

Neet life is pretty good isn't it?

>You do realize not everyone is the same as you? That's what it's called the Ego and His Own, not the Ego and How Everyone Should Be Just Like You.

i realize there are those whose lives are hampered by the handicap of empathy preventing them from enjoying meat (or worse a laughable calculation according to which they have to fear starving children more than imperialism) and i especially like the fact they can't resort to any concept of duty, morality and justice so that all they can do is threatening with karma (much like the soviets already did before being encircled and starved in the nineties) or insisting that the physical and intellectual advantages of the oppression of sentient lives are somehow a spook (in the way any duty towards our victims is)

that's why work ethics have been concocted in order for those forced to toil by necessity (i.e. by structural oppression) to feel somehow proud of the time of their lives they lose in contributing to society (i.e. to the comfort of other lives)

>eating cows provides the same sort of nonspooky pleasure as hating mexicans
What?

even if property is a spook (although the violence unleashed to those threaten it isn't) there's no stirnerian argument against manipulation and untruthfulness as an alternative to sheer violence (like you won't be rewarded in the afterlife if you candidly denouce that spooks are a joke: that's why you might as well pretend that we have "duties" towards those sentients who suffer, even when they are unable to retaliate)

Yeah that feeling of accomplishment upon achieving something magnificent after years of hard work and dedication is just a spook as a result of societal oppression.

> there's no stirnerian argument against manipulation and untruthfulness
It's called a union of egoists. You should be as truthful as much as it benefits you.

cows are tasteful to the taste buds while illegal immigrants don't need rights of citizenship if they are to be made into a blackmailed cheap underclass under constant threat of expulsion

as for "hate" you might learn from this (never mind the weird website, it's people believing in such jokes as justice and morality):

aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/tribalism-vs-universalism/

« Selfishness is the root of tribalism, not ”hate” (a misdirection deliberately created by PC propaganda in order to facilitate the ZC backlash). The meat-eater or the medical researcher experimenting on animals hardly “hate” their victims, yet they do what they do, simply because they are indifferent to the plight of their victims in face of their own interests. Similarly, the Anglo settlers did not necessarily “hate” the Native Americans, and the Israeli settlers did not necessarily “hate” the Palestinians, yet they did what they did, again out of self-interest in favour of their own. Neglibly few of the most horrific oppressive deeds throughout history were motivated by hatred; virtually all were motivated by self-interest in favour of one’s own taken to its logical conclusion. A genuine anti-tribalist movement, therefore, must be built on attacking the true problem of self-interest, not the PC red herring of ”hate”. »

one doesn't need to "hate" those portions of mankind enslaved by imperialism in order to seize resources from their lands extract wealth from their toil, much in the way we do with non-human sentients (since the exceptionality of man in the universe is so obviously a figment)

>cows are tasteful to the taste buds
beef is the shittiest meat out there
tasteless trash
goat is GOAT

>aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/tribalism-vs-universalism/
That's pretty spooky as fuck. No, there actually are people that hate spics, it's not just that they don't care about spics, they actually hate them. Not everything in the PC liberal boogeyman spook.

You seem to have a lot of spooks yourself, you just label things that those spooks tell you not to like as spooks. Saying that someone could want those things even when you don't is the opposite of arguing universalism.

that's exactly why we sell work ethics, we need people to convince themselves that arbeit macht frei if they aren't already innately domesticated like dogs willingly ready to serve their masters (of course an innately canine character instinctively inclined to serve is preferable to someone who has to be socially conditioned to see work as a duty)

>be a natural failure
>never achieve shit
>somehoe convince yourself you never wanted to succeed at anything anyway
>find an ideology that makes you believe being a parasite is a virtue
pathetic really.
better to drop the mental gymnastics and accept you're just a piece of shit.
at least be honest and own your shittiness.
not aimed at you personally btw.

The real question is why do people let you be a parasite?

those people who happen to hate spics are however blessed by a fortunate condition which makes them free from the pain which makes some unlucky people guilty about the privilege they enjoy (it hasn't to be necessarily about cultural constructs like "morality" and "justice", it might also be a blind innate compulsion comparable to diarrhoea; and diarrhoea of course isn't a spook, although it prevents unabashed enjoyment of life)

What, no, the people who hates spics are underprivileged and told the reason why they're underprivileged is spics. Things like taking muh jobs spook and white spook genocide spooks.

excuse me for the stirnerian phraseology but that shit in "piece of shit" is a spookish shit, since people forced to work not to starve usually smell worse than me (i understand that shaming is all there is once we do away with morality, but the shit metaphor isn't really relevant to my material conditions of existence and scientific materialism liberates us from the platonic noble lie according to which there are gold souls and iron souls: we are taught by secular enlightenment that we are all apes in front of other apes and feeling "proud" of one's special nature is a bit silly)

Because meritocracies are fiction and you will never succeed without the assistance of society. People consume your ideas or products, so if it weren't for them you would have nothing without resorting to violence.

And then what? You ask mummy to bring you your tendies and shitpost more on Veeky Forums. What a truly decadent existence.

they have no special reason to accept an unpleasant underclass around them, although cheap labor deprived of rights is of course ultimately useful (by the way they are too smart to make the upper classes angry in an old fashioned class war, since capital assets can now easily ignore the righteous rage of workers and simply go elsewhere - no wonder they take on the powerless)

read better - he wasn't talking about merit at all, he was proposing caste and exclusion, he was limiting opportunity of competing portions of mankind!

"tendies" like these - by the way right-wingers are actually able to pretend that a special valhalla awaits the non-decadent awarding him a tin medal for his efforts ("merit"), it's just that children of the enlightenment like you and me simply know better (i wasn't even aware about the existence of Veeky Forums until recently, i just discovered it is rich of the sort of naive people i like)

>ITT: people thinking Rand and Stirner are compatible

And who is the arbitrator in this scenario? Caste and exclusion based on what? His belonging to a portion of mankind that faces comparatively less obstacles to success?

Then I would ask him to justify his success over those belonging to the underclass who have experienced less using objective evidence such as merit. In an ideal world the only way one man should be more successful than any other should be based on his superior talents. He will most likely be unable to prove this however because we live in a diverse world of mostly luck and circumstance.

If he is unable to prove that his success was not based on circumstance, then why shouldn't he forfeit some of his own to help produce an environment in which more members of a society can experience similar success so that there are more valuable contributers as a whole?

of course they are very different, ayn rand concocted stupid spooks meant to discourage from violent enslavement, while in all stirner there is no single argument against effective violence if you are actually able to inflict it at the expense of sentients who happen to be unable to retaliate

(for all i dislike rand it has to be said that atlas's refusal to contribute is a decent metaphor for a real thing, i.e. capital assets boycotting those countries where their greed isn't rewarded with incentives)

the arbitrator is the same arbitrator which currently arbitrates death for congo children extracting coltan and comfortable banter for the two of us

>(shitting myself and covering myself with shit and throwing shit all over the place)
it's my will to do this it's beneficial to me because i want to do it and that's not a spook OK

too bad workers are forced to get their hands dirty with actual shit while having access to resources without having to offer toil in exchange prevents contact with filth (of course there's the invisible "moral filth" which afflicts for instance those unfortunate enough to feel dirty after having sex before marriage; they are not physically dirty but an unfortunate handicap of the mind makes them uneasy)

consciousness is a spook

Just tell the damn kid, you esoteric son of a bitch.

"dear sentient the suffering you experience while being vivisected is just a delusion"

why does this guy always look smug as fuck?

because he is so proud of his followers who embraced anti-speciesism after having learnt that "I decide whether it is the right thing in me; there is no right outside me. If it is right for me, it is right. Possibly this may not suffice to make it right for the rest; i. e., their care, not mine: let them defend themselves. And if for the whole world something were not right, but it were right for me, i. e., I wanted it, then I would ask nothing about the whole world. So every one does who knows how to value himself, every one in the degree that he is an egoist; for might goes before right, and that — with perfect right."

>inb4 muh spooks - you can find a million examples of this happening in history.
fact is realpolitik doesn't work unless you have a perfect crystal ball so it pays not to be a immoral cunt because one day you'll no longer be top dog and will be dealt with.
even if you don't believe in karma you need to realise people have long memories.

that's why henry kissinger will pay for his sins in the next life

Those things or lack thereof may be limiting the chances of success for a part of it's supporters. And some of it's supporters may not believe on their own platforms but believe that supporting these things will further some other goals of their own. That said, you don't actually "have" to support or believe any of this unless you feel you have to and there's no fundamental objective reason you'd be morally obliged to, nothing is sacred.

>nothing is sacred.

agreed

we will never be grateful enough to max stirner for having made this clear once for all

The cocoa from my bonbons is farmed by children like that.

That isn't to say I'm without empathy. I'd be happy to see those children being happy, but right now I have other goals that are also gratifying and far more acessible - like eating bonbons.

the lovely thing about empathy is that it is a feeling and not a duty: even if you happen to be unfortunately handicapped by empathy you might still be able to look the other way (just like tanning doesn't require looking directly into the sun - there are sunglasses for that) and angry morality warriors won't be able to come up with a rational reason not to bypass your diarrhoea-like unwanted retching (much like we prevent diarrhoea with imodium)

Those things don't limit your success though.

Zero sum games rarely exist in real life.

you might figure out something for anti-speciesists to help pretending there is a point in caring for those sentients whose taste we like

True, though the extent to which you can silence this function is limited. The reach-distance ratio is certainly a factor.

Is that the most horrifying image you could find? That's some weak shit.