Daily reminder that morality is a spook

Daily reminder that morality is a spook.

What is not a spook:
>God
>King
>Church

Your like is a spook

We all really need to sit down one of these days and come up with a definitive list of what is and what isn't a spool

The only thing that isn't a spook is the concept of spooks

Okay what the fuck is a spook?

>when your a commie and have no idea how to argue against traditionalism and capitalism

The concept isn't difficult to grasp. It's anything placed above your own self interest. The liberal conjures up the idea of "Human Rights" and says 'these things are sacred and above you', the egoist rejects the sacred. The egoist sees the world as his property and uses it as he wishes. If his actions align with the idea of 'human rights' its not because he respects them, but because he has never arrived at a situation to demonstrate its powerlessness over him.

Stirner makes the point that not just concepts like "Nation", "King" and "God" are spooks, but even things like "Greed" can become a spook. A man possessed by the spirit no longer serves himself, but serves the phantom of "money" and works tirelessly in ITS service piling up riches for ITS pleasure--it exerts its control on the unique self.

A fixed idea that an individual places above their self interest.

Communism is a spook.

>traditionalism and capitalism
Pick one.

Good summary. I'd also like to add, the book isn't promoting some "Stirnerist" ideology of rejecting spooks, it's more like an observation.

>autism-spectrum subhumans actually believe this
Reminder that the only thing more potentially dangerous to humanity than neoliberal marxists are ancap retards like Stirner and his brainless drones

>ancap retards like Stirner
Stirner has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism.

>Reminder that the only thing more potentially dangerous to humanity
Someone working in their own self interest would be a danger to humanity as a whole? Tell me user, how did societies emerge? Maybe out of mutual self interest?

Read the book and criticize IT. Don't criticize this meme portrayal you see on Veeky Forums.

So is a NEET the ultimate free man?

Far from it. The common NEET depends on something other than himself to survive. Be it his family or NEETbux, etc. Could you call this 'freedom'? There is no freedom in dependency. And as is usually the case, the need grows weak from his dependency; as time passes, he becomes weaker still, until his eventual suicide, as he grips his anime pillow or something.

What if you're a NEET who became that way because you inherited a shitload of money and now you see no reason to work?

>Daily reminder
>Daily
>Reminder
>time
>memory
>consciousness

Stay spooked.

I'm of course using the common NEET as an example.

But, even in that case, the nouveau riche NEET may become subject to existential boredom, or succumb to his desires, which are not in his interest, e.g. spending money on shitty food and anime, or drugs... etc. This example can very well destroy an individual as much as it can liberate them financially. So in the end, it depends on the individual.

Why do people to this day still give a shit about Stirner's writings? And I don't even in meme sense, I mean in academia.

Sure thing.

Thanks

Daily reminder that moral skeptics literally don't have any arguments that haven't been debunked decades ago but they couldn't possibly know this because they came to their moral skepticism while thinking rly deeeep thoughts under the shower.

I'm not at all sure how much he is studied or talked about in academia. I doubt he is, other than a footnote for other discussions. His effect on Marx and his ideological development comes to mind. Nietzsche also.

Nobody in academia gives a fuck about stirner.
The only people who do are found on the internet.

>Daily reminder that moral skeptics literally don't have any arguments that haven't been debunked decades ago
Care to elaborate, and not just make claims?

>Ancaps
>Stirner
Holy fuck at least read his stuff before you shitpost.

>le soverieng citizen face

>The polemic against privilege forms a characteristic feature of liberalism, which fumes against “privilege” because it itself appeals to “right.”
Further than to fuming it cannot carry this; for privileges do not fall before right falls, as they are only forms of right. But right falls apart
into its nothingness when it is swallowed up by might, i.e. when one understands what is meant by “Might goes before right.” All right explains
itself then as privilege, and privilege itself as power, as — superior power.

>If you let yourself be made out in the right by another, you must no less let yourself be made out in the wrong by him; if justification
and reward come to you from him, expect also his arraignment and punishment. Alongside right goes wrong, alongside legality crime. What
are you? — You are a — criminal!