Daily reminder that libertarianism...

I mean, all we have are his writings, so all we can say is that his words give the appearance of a genuine belief in God. I'm just pointing out Sankt Max ripped off his critique of liberal humanism from de Maistre. The whole "Man does not exist" spiel takes up a good portion of his book.

They did a great job at killing themselves.

it's literally 100% accurate

show me one contemporary monarchist (with a brain) who didn't go through that exact process of development.

>that feelio when the bloodlines are still extant
I will still die for the Bourbons even if their heir apparent is a cuck/mongrel

>dying for a mongrel cuck because he's named "Bourbon"

i want christianity to be the state religion again and have no real reason to live

Only the first monarch of a dynasty is going to be good for the rest you are better off using Athenian democracy where leaders where randomly elected because muh gods.

>dying for a degenerated bloodline
lmao nigga

what the fuck else is there to do, invent one?

If you're really that desperate to die, why not just kys? Why do you need to fabricate an external goal that, by accomplishing it, will end your life?

Wasn't Spain all prepared to be a genuine, for-real monarchy, but then their king decided to be generous and give their legislature power? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

i dont want to die but i dont care if i do, especially if its in furtherance of something i actually care about

absolutism is the only way to go, but people are deluded into thinking voting improves their lives

Dude, you're willing to die for a literal cuck. Sounds to me like you're using this "monarchism" thing as a pretext to end your life.

And, on a logical note, how can you care about something if you're dead?

>I think he genuinely believed in God, though, which seems like an obstacle to being an Egoist.

No more than gravity or germ theory is, the trouble is that very few people fall into that category.

>I'm just pointing out Sankt Max ripped off his critique of liberal humanism from de Maistre. The whole "Man does not exist" spiel takes up a good portion of his book.

Stirner didn't invent deconstruction nor did Maistre however what made Stirner unique was that he took it to its end point and deconstructed deconstruction.

Can you give me an instance in which genuinely believing in god is to your benefit? Not just appearing to believe for the sake of convenience, but actually believing.

If its your natural inclination, take a look at Saints from Paul to Aquinas to reject the notion of God would be horrifically painful and spooky for them.

Remember the benefit is tied solely to the ego and not nebulous ideals or points external to it.

I was actually asking about your specific ego. Unless you're just postulating about what de Maistre may or may not have found to be to his individual benefit

Yes, actually. Where do you think dynasties come from? Simply perform a coup d'etat and establish yourself as Monarch.

How do you know?

>I was actually asking about your specific ego.

My mistake, I thought in that other posts you were asking for general examples.

In my own experience there was a point in my life after reading certain books where I believed in God despite not wanting because that conflicted with certain spooks and this caused some rather nasty dissonance. Detaching myself from some rather spooky notions of what I should be allowed me to end this painful and confusing dissonance and develop in a much better way.

>Daily reminder that any ideologies would be extremely impractical in real life.
ftfy

Ideologies are for the mentally lazy and/or stupid, who need to ask others how to think. At best they're just intellectual fads that poseurs adopt to look cool.

(That's my ideology, anyway.)

>absolutism is the only way to go
If you want to live in Saudi Arabia, Stalin-era Russia or Saddam-era Iraq.

Yes hello.

I started as a socdem, then became a Machiavelli-inspired militant socialist, then an anarchist out of edginess, then became a /leftypol/-tier Stirnerite, then became an absolutist.

Faith isn't a rational thing. You've got it, or you haven't. You and I haven't.

Holy shit what an unvirtuous turbofag.

Nobody wants a cuck like you to die for them, sperg.

I still don't get how Stirner is associated with the Left in any way, same applies to Nietzsche.

There's literally no reading of those two which can justify destroying capitalism.

>Machiavelli-inspired militant socialist
What do you mean by Machiavelli inspired?

>There's literally no reading of those two which can justify destroying capitalism.
user that's retarded in pretty much every single way.

Have you even read Stirner?

As for Nietzsche: he was far too complicated for any politics.
Basically Machiavelli's arguments for a strong state, only with socialism. I was thirteen, sue me.

>Have you even read Stirner?

Obviously.

You're going to have to explain why you think Stirner doesn't say anything anti-capitalist. I can see why you'd say he isn't socialist, sure, but not anti-capitalist.

>some of us are capable of making observations and drawing conclusions

If you believe you are somehow capable of making observations and drawing conclusions, it's just proof that you aren't at all.

He obviously believes in the concept of property.

Even socialists believe in property you dongle. Stirner, in fact, goes further. His concept of property is completely incompatible with capitalism -- how can someone else have private property if everything is yours, and part of you?

Waste of quads desu

daily reminder that "the war of all against all" was made irrelevant by the advancement of studies into hunter gatherer ethnography

>Even socialists believe in property you dongle.

No they really don't. Using words like "common property" is a dysphemism for nobody owning anything.

Stirner's radical egoism would never be compatible with anything that could possibly be argued is a Communist or socialist society.

>No they really don't. Using words like "common property" is a dysphemism for nobody owning anything.
Not at all: the idea is that people should own the means of production that they use -- certainly a concept of property. This is compared with Stirner, who does not really have such an idea. He does not divvy up the world into "my property" and "your property", as socialists do (even if only transiently). Stirner's use of the word "property" truly IS a dysphemism for nobody owning anything, or conversely you owning everything (same thing).
>Stirner's radical egoism would never be compatible with anything that could possibly be argued is a Communist or socialist society.
I already agree with this. The point is whether he's compatible with capitalist society.

>I already agree with this.

Then why are we having a discussion? My original post was directly against the weird fascination leftists have for Stirner, when, as I said, he can't be reconciled with anything that can be called Marxism/Socialism or Communism.

Because you said "There's literally no reading of those two which can justify destroying capitalism" which I said was retarded. If you just meant thee's no reading of the two which can justify socialism...why didn't you say that? There's more to politics than socialism and capitalism.

Also, as for why there's that fascination: bluntly, Stirner's right. Some socialists simply take some of his arguments, and disagree with others. But there's others, too, full-egoists. With them the issue is "how do we achieve this egoistic vision", and their answer is "with socialism". Socialism would bring the easiest, best benefit to themselves and to those they love (and therefore to themselves &c.).

That's really an argument of mechanics. It's about whether socialism is effective, or if some other method would be effective. I know there's egoists who go the other way and become ancaps, and I myself became an absolutist before quickly growing disillusioned with politics as a whole.

Socialism implies destroying capitalism though, which is why I used those words.

Socialism implies destroying capitalism, but destroying capitalism does not imply socialism.

...

Fine. Either way Stirner is a weird bedfellow for the Left if you ask me.

I advise you revisit The Ego and It's Own because he absolutely does not. All the references to "property" do more to illustrate how arbitrary and undeserving of respect it is rather than defending it as a real thing.

He produces either a socialist who plunders his arguments for anti-capitalist ammunition, or a wholly new kind of socialist. One whom I'm pleasantly surprised the rest of the left has not turned on. By God I hope that's how you use whom.

Nietzsche may not have wanted to destroy capitalism, but he by no means had any kind of sentimental attachment to it either.

Frankly he was in favour of anything that kept the 'rabble' in check, and capitalism did a fine job of that. What he absolutely did not want was Socialism or Democracy.

Sadly he was hijacked by a gang of French post-structuralist/modernist Marxists in the 20th century, so you'd be forgiven for not thinking so.

this post is pure ideology if ive ever seen one

Three words: Class war NOW!

You know what they say, just as a capitalist can make Che Guevara merchandise profitable, just as a Marxist can make an aristocrat like Nietzsche seem like a working class hero.

Nietzche considered capitalism innoble and the accumulation of wealth as another form of herd morality :
"At present at least, all militarily established civilisation still stands high above all so called industrial civilisation; the latter, in its present form, is in general the meanest mode of existence that has ever been. It is simply the law of necessity that operates here: people want to live, and have to sell themselves; but they despise him who exploits their necessity and purchases the workman."

And? Anyone with above a double-digit IQ has a critique of capitalism.

Doesn't mean he's a Commie.

>Frankly he was in favour of anything that kept the 'rabble' in check, and capitalism did a fine job of that.
This isn't entirely true. Capitalism does to an extent keep plebs in line, but it also totally degrades all culture and intellectualism into something that can be mass-marketed to plebs. This is not what Nietzsche is about

What he's really in favour of is whatever produces great aristocratic people. Capitalism does not do this, it just exalts swindlers and the herd above all else.

Does mean he's useful to commies though. Fascists too.

Nietzsche's aristocracy has much more in common with Fascism than Communism.

Fascism minus the racism/anti-semitism is practically Nietzsche.

Perhaps if you have read Nietzsche very badly, or from the perspective of someone wanting him to be fascist.

He reads to me like someone who wants a society similar to Plato's Republic tbqh, though granted that might be closer to fascism than contemporary society.

It really isn't. Fascism is pure unadulterated plebeianism.

The aesthetics, the morals, the goals, the enemies - all of it is pretty much designed to excite plebs. Not to mention it's militantly anti-intellectual and anti-art.

tbqh Iran is the most Nietzschean country on the planet right now.

Take out the Qur'an and stick in Thus Spake Zarathustra and you've got yourself a Hyperborean paradise.

>tbqh Iran is the most Nietzschean country on the planet right now.

Yes, that's what I said.

Yes, because this world is Evil. But generic Anarchist Dialectic is an excellent gateway to higher realizations. A very obvious one being the identity of the ultimate master (Archon).

I said he had more in common with it, not that he was a Fascist.

See above.

My main point still stands, however - Nietzsche was incredibly far away from the Marxism/Socialism/Communism that people have tried to attach him to in the 20th century+.

I don't think anyone has ever tried to attach Nietzsche to Marxism, socialism or communism.

Anarchism, yes. But that's entirely down to two things
a) Emma Goldman is retarded
b) It's understandable how some anarchists would appreciate the individualistic and anti-tradition themes of his philosophy.

Even then I would say he's closer to anarchism than fascism. Even if he's miles away from both in any case.

>I don't think anyone has ever tried to attach Nietzsche to Marxism, socialism or communism.

Did you miss most of the 20th century French philosophical tradition?

This.

Remember that there was also a link made between Stirner and Nietzsche, and Stirner clearly did support anarchism (even if not necessarily the kind of anarchism he inspired).

There's a difference between drawing on Nietzsche's ideas to add to your own philosophy and trying to suggest that Nietzsche literally is Marxist.

how so?

Only in his OWN PROPERTY (wich is based on might makes right) not private property as being fundemental for the function of capitalism. May it be enforced by the might of state or private business he does not respect it and has full will to enforce his own might over it to make it his Property. Stirner doesnt have a single respect for the liberal sense of property or the nap. He had a WHOLE chapther on it for gods sake. (Also he wasnt leftist or rightist but indeed Anarchist)

Bruno Bauer was the best friend of Max Stirner and later in his life hanged out with Nietzsche.

Striner may have struck the strongest blow to state and private property than anyone I have read desu

>libertarianism and monarchism are at odds
Have you even read Hoppe?

Fiction isn't really my thing.

Daily reminder that Striner was not agianst socialism, but against scared socialism

>It really isn't. Fascism is pure unadulterated plebeianism.
Only if you view it from the pleb's point of view.

>The aesthetics, the morals, the goals, the enemies - all of it is pretty much designed to excite plebs. Not to mention it's militantly anti-intellectual and anti-art.
These are just devices to keep the populace pliant and ignorant. The actual fascists are the ones disseminating the above.

If the Nazis were truly anti-art, why did they plunder the best of Europe's art treasures for themselves?

>The actual fascists are the ones disseminating the above.
And it just so happens that what they're disseminating is purely plebeian.

There is no liberty to be found in fascism, not even in the highest ranks of the party. Even holding power requires surrendering yourself to your peers and your subjects.

>If the Nazis were truly anti-art, why did they plunder the best of Europe's art treasures for themselves?
If they weren't anti-art why did they go around Europe destroying works of art?

Why is it that the art they tried to produce was totally shallow?

>Capitalism ... degrades all culture and intellectualism into something that can be mass-marketed to plebs.

It's not capitalism that does that, it's the plebs themselves.

You can't force culture and intellectualism on people, so capitalism doesn't try. It stands to reason that more refined ideas/tastes can only be appreciated by fewer people, and therefore cruder cultural artifacts will be the most popular.

Capitalism just allows people to choose. You don't have to like their choices, and are free to make your own.

>+10 Veeky Forums points

That's exactly why capitalism is plebeian. It empowers the people who have no reservations about selling culture to the highest bidder and marginalizes true art.

Since in capitalism money is power, the bigger the market you can draw from the more powerful you are. The most powerful people are those who market to plebs. This is what I mean when capitalism exalts plebs and swindlers above all else.

>Capitalism just allows people to choose
Precisely the problem. It allows plebs to guide culture into the abyss and the elites are all too happy to allow this to happen because that's where the profit is.

>Hobbes

read locke bitch

>And it just so happens that what they're disseminating is purely plebeian.
Well, obviously. Instruments of control must be plebeian if they're to be understood. But you're confusing the tools of fascism with the tastes of actual fascists. My point is that they weren't necessarily philistines.

>Why is it that the art they tried to produce was totally shallow?
Because it was really propaganda. Fascism was such a short-lived ideology that it never got round to sponsoring art. If it had, the art world would probably have reverted to the patronage system. Artists would make a living by producing commissions for elitist connoisseurs, like they'd always done throughout history.

>My point is that they weren't necessarily philistines.
Of the ones that took power they absolutely were. The Nazis in particular were by far and away the worst offenders for being uncultured. Not that they didn't like to pretend otherwise.

>Because it was really propaganda. Fascism was such a short-lived ideology that it never got round to sponsoring art. If it had, the art world would probably have reverted to the patronage system. Artists would make a living by producing commissions for elitist connoisseurs, like they'd always done throughout history.
But here's what you're forgetting. Fascism is totalitarian, there is nothing that's outside the public sphere and indeed everything is subject to state control.

This is especially noticeable in art. Art espousing individual values or taste is discouraged if not destroyed. What instead comes to dominate culture is no art at all, it's propaganda. If it doesn't service the state and excite or sooth their plebeian subjects it is of no use.

I also don't understand why you think it would revert to patronage when fascism still had a capitalist consumer economy. The big business in art would still be in mass-producing works designed to be popular rather than creative, but even worse than now given the added over-seeing eye of a barbaric state.

In many ways the only thing fascism has to offer an artist is slavery. No freedom of expression, no way to experiment. All you're allowed to do is use your skills to service the state.

>and marginalizes true art.
As I've said, true art marginalises itself. The greater the sensitivity and intellect required to appreciate it, the fewer people will be interested in it. You can broadcast Bach in shopping malls if you like, but it won't bring a plebeian artistic renaissance any closer.

Capitalism is just a system of allocating resources. It's also the most efficient system discovered thus far. More people get what they want and need through capitalism than by any other means. You seem to be taking issue with the things people want: well fine, but the fault belongs to them, not the system.

>It allows plebs to guide culture into the abyss
Hardly. By definition, plebs don't know anything about culture. They amuse themselves with brief sensory distractions, but are incapable of appreciating true art. For those who are, modern media and mass transit systems (both the products of capitalism) have made art more accessible than ever before.

>Of the ones that took power they absolutely were. The Nazis in particular were by far and away the worst offenders for being uncultured.
Maybe so. But empires are always built by blunt instruments. Once established, and all the wars are over, they look to enjoy the spoils of conquest. If there had been a second generation of fascists, raised in wealth and comfort, their preoccupations might well have turned towards the cultural.

>there is nothing that's outside the public sphere and indeed everything is subject to state control.
You missed by basic point, which is that this is only true from the plebs' point of view. Elites are above such things. The rest of your post just elaborates on this error.

Exactly, this is the problem. Plebeians don't know anything about culture but capitalism places control of it squarely in their hands. It's like a ship captained by a chimp and we know it is going to sink.

In capitalism whatever sells tickets is what dominates culture. This is why I say plebs are guiding it. This is not a system that cultivates artists, it is a system that cultivates salesmen. This is the mortal threat of capitalism to all that is good.

I'm aware those who've drank the capitalist Kool-Aid think this is totally acceptable because it's just the "free market" but this is exactly the problem. I don't hate the plebs, it's not their fault that they're uncultured idiots. They will exist in any system at any time. I hate capitalism because it's what enables them. It is exactly the system that is at fault.

You can't hate an animal for just following its nature. But you can easily hate a system that exploits that animal for pure materialistic profit.

> If there had been a second generation of fascists, raised in wealth and comfort, their preoccupations might well have turned towards the cultural.
Maybe so. And maybe Nietzsche-loving aliens will invade tomorrow and save us from the herd.

But that's just pointless what-aboutery.

>You missed by basic point, which is that this is only true from the plebs' point of view. Elites are above such things
You missed a very important part of one of my earlier arguments that addressed this very thing.

"Even holding power requires surrendering yourself to your peers and your subjects. ".

The fascist "elites" are no more independent than the plebs are. Their existence an livelihood orbits around manipulating plebeian sensibilities. Just as the state controls the plebs, it is also subject to their whims. Any leader in any system at any has to accept this. They are not free, they are part of a machine that only gets more and more stifling and claustrophobic the deeper into it you get.

This is the importance of free artists and intellectuals. They're removed from the symbiotic relationship between plebs and kings. They can think and create as they please and if a society values art and culture it is important that their freedom to do so is protected.

Fascism does no such thing. This is what I meant when I say "the only thing fascism has to offer an artist is slavery". In fascism you do not get to think or create whatever you want, you can only do what the state permits. The best you can hope for is to be paid by the state to make propaganda for them.

>Plebeians don't know anything about culture but capitalism places control of it squarely in their hands.
You're conflating culture with those "brief sensory distractions" I was talking about. I don't regard the latest blockbuster superhero movie as culture. Actual culture is going on elsewhere.

>This is not a system that cultivates artists
What system ever has? In previous centuries, you needed a wealthy patron if you wanted an artistic career. Only a relative handful of people would encounter your work within your own lifetime. And you'd better damn well not offend anybody. Nowadays, artists can reach a worldwide audience directly through the internet. There might not be much fame or money in it, but these shouldn't be the main motivations for a true artist anyhow.

Good art is out there for people who choose to seek it out. And those people have always been a small and self-selecting group. I really don't see how capitalism has discouraged or prevented genuine artistic endeavour. On the contrary, it has made it easier.

>The fascist "elites" are no more independent than the plebs are. Their existence an livelihood orbits around manipulating plebeian sensibilities. Just as the state controls the plebs, it is also subject to their whims. Any leader in any system at any has to accept this. They are not free, they are part of a machine that only gets more and more stifling and claustrophobic the deeper into it you get.
These are some pretty sweeping generalisations, and contestable at best.
An elite, by definition, is above laws and conventions. That's the whole point. If fascism doesn't allow the elite their freedoms, then it's not a functional elitist ideology. And do you really have such an insight into the machinery of the fascist state, or did you just make this up?

>This is the importance of free artists and intellectuals. They're removed from the symbiotic relationship between plebs and kings. They can think and create as they please and if a society values art and culture it is important that their freedom to do so is protected.
And what makes a "free" artist? Does he subsist on fresh air and rainwater? Somebody somewhere is paying for his dinner, whether it's a patron, a free market, or a patrician state. Unless he holds down a day job, or was independently wealthy in the first place, he is beholden to somebody, and therefore not free.

You misunderstand. When I say "culture" I mean in the sense of ideas, customs and behaviour. It's no good for to just reinforce what plebs already believe when it comes to this and it is the most important thing when it comes to determining the society we will have tomorrow.

>What system ever has?
Aristocratic societies did this imperfectly. Since the only consumers who mattered were well-educated and well-bred nobles generally they had pretty high standards for artists but at the same time the will of the artist was second to the will of the patron.

What we should be trying to do, rather than just brainlessly defending the status quo. Is figuring out what we can do to make a better system.

>Good art is out there for people who choose to seek it out
I'm not sure you're understanding my argument very well. My problem is not that there's no good art anymore. My problem is that good art is of absolutely no consequence to society at large. It simply cannot compete in the free market of ideas against the sheer volume of mass-produced plebeian culture. The good art that we have is a mere flash in the pan that's inevitably going to be lost to the ever rising tide of shit.

Also I have stuff to do so this will probably be the last post I'm making in this thread.

>An elite, by definition, is above laws and conventions.
You didn't understand my argument.

Leaders draw all their power from the support of the masses. This is true in every system ever in history. And this is why I say leaders are no more independent than their subjects - if they wish to remain a leader everything they do will be dominated by the whims of their peers and subjects.

This is what I mean when I talk about a symbiotic relationship between plebs and kings. The plebs need to remain in the good graces of the state so they can continue with their lives. The state needs the support of the plebs to sustain itself. Neither is independent from the other.

This isn't just true for fascism. This is true for every ideology.

>And what makes a "free" artist?
Did you even read my post? Because I answered that exact question in the very next sentence, and indeed that sentence is part of the bit that was quoted by you.

"They're removed from the symbiotic relationship between plebs and kings."

A "free" artist is one that's removed from this relationship. By virtue of their profession they're not reliant on plebeian support. And provided they live in a society with freedom of expression their art does not need the blessing of the state.

As explained earlier fascism by virtue of its totalitarianism leaves no room for this.

Anyway, that's the last post I'll be making.

Well, in case you come back later ...

>My problem is that good art is of absolutely no consequence to society at large.
Nor was it ever. Art was always the preserve of those rich enough to acquire it, and refined enough to appreciate it.

>The good art that we have is a mere flash in the pan that's inevitably going to be lost to the ever rising tide of shit.
The good art and the shit aren't competing. They appeal to widely different audiences. If it's good then somebody will want to preserve it, and if it's shit they won't. This is the same survivorship bias that's been operating for centuries, and I can't see how capitalism changes that.