Are all spooks necessarily bad?

I am white. You should respect me.

>I'm not liberal
>I believe in direct democracy

This wasn't me, by the way. This is me.

>wants to know if spooks are bad
>while himself being spooked

That's like asking if murder (wrongful killing) is wrongful. You're tautologically question begging. No one here is going to justify your beloved one for you, you'll do that plenty well on your own

Can somebody give me a rundown on what constitutes as a spook?

A fixed, staid idea. Whatever has passed into your stubbornness, whatever idea you would give your life to defend, is a spook. Even if this idea is the idea of the person you love, you are spooked by it if you would throw your life away for the sake of theirs, not realizing that you cannot love them or enjoy their love without first being alive.

Concepts that give you a feeling of righteousness, such as the redpill, are spooks.

Did stirner ever say spooks were "bad"?

>democracy
Get out shitfuck

>Are all spooks necessarily bad?
they're definitely not healthy for you

>I mean, some (democracy, human/civil rights) sound pretty good to me.
they might be nice sounding words but how many people were killed in Vietnam, Iraq, etc trying to actually make them actually concrete

the DPRK is one of the most spookie places on earth

Liberals fundamentally support capitalism, representative "democracy," and the state, I don't.
What is wrong with the concept of everyone having an equal say in what happens in the world?
>they might be nice sounding words but how many people were killed in Vietnam, Iraq, etc trying to actually make them actually concrete
Sure, and I'm definitely, absolutely opposed to the actions undertaken by the U.S. But surely all the killings were a violation of their right to life, no? And it's not exactly like they had a say in whether they were exterminated.

>What is wrong with the concept
What is "wrong" is that you are applying "wrong" and "right" to "concepts," i.e. thoughts, shadows, dreams.

>all killings were a violation of right to life
>didn't have a say in whether or not they were exterminated
Ok, if you want to open this can of worms, I will indulge you. If everyone has a right to life, how can you defend yourself from being killed? If you defend yourself, you violate the other person's "right to life."

>If everyone has a right to life, how can you defend yourself from being killed? If you defend yourself, you violate the other person's "right to life."
Well, once you attempt to violate others' rights, you yourself are exempt from those rights. It's why it is morally justifiable to kill Nazis.

The good/bad dichotomy is a spook.

>democracy
>sounds pretty good to me

>are all ____ ____
No, everything has exceptions to everything.

>Holman rights
Read beyond human rights by Alain de benoist

>Democracy
Visit /pol/. Read Mein Kampf, or against equality and democracy by tomislav sunic

Get redpilled shitlib faggot

How does that not make you a liberal

>muh abortion

You'll become pro-choice later when you realize how ineffective anti-abortion laws are. Can't fault your current opinion though when you're unaware of that.

Stirner criticizes conventional notions of revolution, arguing that social movements aimed at overturning the state are tacitly statist because they are implicitly aimed at the establishment of a new state thereafter. To illustrate this argument, he compares his own social and moral role with that of Jesus Christ:

The time [in which Jesus lived] was politically so agitated that, as is said in the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arraigned him for 'political intrigue', and yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took the least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revolutionary, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him? [...] Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionary, like Caesar, but an insurgent: not a state-overturner, but one who straightened himself up. [...] [Jesus] was not carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about, and undisturbed by, these authorities. [...] But, even though not a ringleader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionary, he (and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much the more an insurgent who lifted himself above everything that seemed so sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to [...]; precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the established, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator..."

—Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, pp. 280–281
As Stirner specifies in a footnote (p. 280), he was here using the word insurgent "in its etymological sense"; thus, to rise above the religion and government of one's own times and to take control of one's life with no consideration of them, but not necessarily to overthrow them. This contrasts with the method of the revolutionary who brings about a change of conditions by displacing one government with another:

The revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on 'institutions'. It is not a fight against the established [...] it is only a working forth of me out of the established. [...] Now, as my object is not an overthrow of the established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose indeed."

—Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, p. 280
Stirner was writing about people liberating themselves from their own limits and rising above limiting social, political and ideological conditions, and for each to walk their own way.

mein kampf is a shit book and you shouldnt recommend it to anyone
hitler is way too full of himself

I won't call it spooks because I'm not familiar with Stirner enough.

But if you mean ideology, or just simply "thing you take it to be a natural or perfect truth but is in fact simply a social construction, product of context, relative truth and so on", then I'd say 99 times out of 100, it appears to be a great thing in itself.

It's not that it's bad, but that it is fake! It doesn't deliver what it promises to deliver, it's a fantasy.

Good goy, shill moar for israel

Nice assumptions, kid.
Liberals fundamentally support capitalism, which is against direct democracy and against the right to life, and I am pro-choice.

>human rights
only if you want hordes of brown people coming inside your spook called national borders and complaining like dutiful consumers that they aren't getting their spooks fulfilled by the spook called State

thanks

>sound pretty good to me
There's no point in worrying about spooks if you're this fucking spooked

>once you violate others' rights, you are exempt from rights
So now your "rights" are conditional? If it isn't universal it is not, per your definition ("the right to life and the rights that come with it, food, housing, etc."), a right. If it only exists in certain circumstances it ceases to become a right and becomes in fact a -- privilege.

And so you have shown your true colors with the statement "it's morally justifiable to kill Nazis." Even if the specific National Socialist in question has never sullied his hands with human blood, e.g. Hitler, it would still be "justifiable to kill" him because he has "violated the rights of others." In other words, he has broken with your beloved ideology and in doing so has become subhuman in your eyes. This is the essential goal of ideology, to calcify your thoughts, and turn your necessarily transient perception into stagnant "reflection."

>If it only exists in certain circumstances it ceases to become a right and becomes in fact a -- privilege.
Alright, then, it's just a matter of word choice.
And, yes, if you are going out and actively participating in genocide, then you should be killed. What is wrong with that? If you don't go out and murder others, then you maintain the right to not be murdered.

What is wrong with that is that it is subjective. If the Nazis had won it would be the other side accused of a variety of things, an endless list of justifications to deny people their rights.

Well, it isn't (a matter of word choice) because you're contradicting yourself. That's what is "wrong" with it: it doesn't make sense.You say first that rights are something "universal," possessed by "all men," then backpedal to to say that if you violate rights, you no longer have access to them. Somehow they are at once universal and particular. So your "rights" are a spook, they're a contradictory notion you have fabricated that rules your mind.

>if you're going out and actively participating in genocide, you should be killed
If someone is trying "genocide" me, and those I hold dear, I would certainly kill them. What do I care (in the "moral" sense) about any other circumstance? I feel empathy for those who are tortured; does this mean I *must* defend them from their torturer? Not if, for instance, it necessarily ends my life (I must be self sacrificing) to do so, for how can I defend anyone if I'm dead?

>if you don't go out and murder others, you maintain the right to not be murdered

All I see here is, "If you agree with me, I treat you as a person: if not, I treat you as a non-entity."

No since that's a statement that can't even be true in itself

>Are all spooks necessarily bad?
so nobody here actually reads stirner? do you guys actually learn your philosophy through Veeky Forums shitposts?

Autistic child struggles to understand the concept of a social contract: The posts

Is this some next level shitposting?

I think most people had a general understanding of Stirner until the meme left this board and became adopted by /pol/ (through Veeky Forums I think) and eventually the normies will grab onto it too
They only understand him through memes so obviously they don't know that Stirner admits spooks can sometimes be for your self interest and therefore shouldn't be dismissed, assuming that's what you were referring to

So in what sense would it be logical to try to avoid spooks? Devoting your live to a life of no devotion is a devotion in itself.

how can rights NOT be conditional? It is dependent on a state for crying out loud.

In what sense do I not seem to understand a or the "social contract?"

It's not "logical" to do it, I use logic i.e. understanding to see a spook, because they become apparent through contradictory justification. If you devote your life to being logical, "Logos" becomes your spook. If you devote your life to "Freedom from Devotion," then "Non-bondage" becomes your spook. I use logic, I use devotion, etc. I am devoted to those whom I love, not to any nothing (thought, idea, shadow).

You don't seem to be the guy I was responding to, so I feel as though you use a different conception of "rights." Do you mean state as in mode of physical existence or state in the sense of polity?

is "tedious edginess" a spook?

Are all integers above 3 odd?
Yes, there are no exceptions and the proof is trivial.

>direct democracy

lmao okay

Meant prime numbers, fuck me.

Killing yourself for anything is stupid
Dedicating yourself to an ideal cause is a selfish act

I don't see wtf ur on about

Nihilism. Philosophy of Nothingness

Well said

R u implying Jesus was a nihilist?

No, fascism is the best spook there is.

>seem
>good
>bad
Absolutely disgusting
>me
Acceptable

/thread

I once one time spooked in my khaki pants, as I usually wear pants during spooky times in the day. However, these pants weren't ordinary pants... no... they... were... khaki pants. Khaki pants are a tanish, brown colo(u)r as you may or might know. Spooks are usually darkish, black, so... you... see... the problem. Yes? Black on... tan. What images pop into your mind or head? Yeah, me too as well. Black people and Mexican people... together... uh... oh under one roof. Gangs and cartels together in one room, under one roof? These are some awfully troubling times. Well..., that's all I gotta say for now at this time for now.

really makes you think

good/bad dichotomy is a spook

No, 4 is even.
BAM, an exception.

Just don't hold a particular ideology above you and there you go, you aren't spooked anymore.

What does the term "spook" even mean? I have seen this used a lot with a pic of Max Stirner, what does it mean and why is it used so often?

read a book you dip