/stirner general/

I skimmed it, nothing super-surprising desu.

that literally does not meet Stirner's formal definition of a spook, which I just outlined... you can call it a QUAZOOM or whatever you want, but it's not what Stirner calls a spook.

>exerts authority over the internal desires of an individual

Thats a pretty vague definition user. I think with that definition just about anything could fit the definition of spook. What exerts authority over my internal desires has purely subjective content to me. Free will conceptually raised as the banner of some political movement which I personally have an involvement, for instance, could cause me to have the experience of an authority exerting control over my desires.

If I think Stirner himself has suspect motives, maybe just because I'm paranoid, then I imagine his concept of a spook to exert undue precedence over my own thinking - i.e. it exerts authority - and can qualify for spookhood. I see nothing wrong with my analysis.

I'm glad there are other Egoists on my meme board.

>Free will conceptually raised as the banner of some political movement which I personally have an involvement
I don't understand how that would work at all

>I imagine his concept of a spook to exert undue precedence over my own thinking - i.e. it exerts authority - and can qualify for spookhood

This sounds just like a 'regular' mental illness. Stirner uses his concept of spook more for the analysis of heteronormative value systems. You can compare this to the Super-Ego, in which rules are inserted not through the reasoning of the individual themselves but through irrational means ('education' for example where parents use their authority to create irrational responses of fear an anguish in the children when confronted with morality).

Now it's theoretically possible that the concept of spooks works as a spook for you, but that would be due to an individual psychopathology of yours, not because of the concept as such.

>concept as such
this some kind of objectivist ideology?

I've never read any Rand, so no. I'm just trying to put Stirner in as plain a vocabulary as I can think of.

Is it even possible to be a "Stirnerfag"?

On one hand the idea of following someone else's philosophy is against everything he stood for, but on the other hand it seems like his philosophy is the absence of philosophy in a way.

That just leads me back to the original question. It's like other philosophy are illnesses and he is the cure, but the cure is something you only take once and you don't "have a cure" in the same way you "have an illness."

>"free will" does not seem to be capable of doing this
That's because it is a very powerful spook that is utterly intoxicating in its authority over you.