Who would win in this debate and who is better?

autism

Stirner>Nietzsche

Nietzsche just took Stirner slightly further and toned down the edgyness a little for his readership.

Evola did not advocate rape. His wiki has become so laughably pozzed with bullshit ever since Bannon mentioned him.

cum

I don't want to ask in another thread because I hate Stirner and don't want to see another thread with his face in the catalog but how exactly is he a left wing philosopher or even a Young Hegelian at all? My nigga supports slavery, rape, all forms of depravity as long as you want to do it, why do commies and left-wing anarchists look up to this guy?

tell us how bad of a spook it was

Haven't read Evola, but if you're like a hardcore reactionary purist like him, don't you have to be, in some sense, pro-rape, in that rape is, when you really think about it, sort of "trad"? I mean, if you're someone who idealizes Rome and sees most or all political and cultural reforms since then as degeneration (Christianity, the Enlightenment, etc.), wouldn't you have to support, say, rape during war time? Or marital rape? After all, at that time, rape would have primarily been seen as a property crime, and laws against rape would have only applied to citizens, and even then, in a much narrower sense than exists today. A Roman wouldn't find it at all odd or immoral to rape one's enemies' women, or to rape women in a foreign land where Roman law doesn't apply. A Roman would not think that there is anything wrong using force against a wife who refuses to perform her marital duties, nor would they think a woman alone in the house of a strange man wasn't asking for it. And this isn't even getting into age of consent laws, which are mostly a modern thing.

tl;dr, doesn't a True Reactionary™ have basically support rape and pedophilia to be true to his glorious and noble ideals?

Lol. In what sense did Nietzsche turn down the edginess? You're talking out of your ass.

Because he opposes any kind hierarchy or at the very least has no respect or reverence for it.

The left/right divide is on the issue of hierarchy and how natural and/or desirable it is.

Couldn't a hypothetical stirnerian world have a constructed hierarchy, where the strongest ego makes all other egos that property? Sure, they'd know the hierarchy was made up, but it's still exist

>Sure, they'd know the hierarchy was made up, but it's still exist
within the confines of the theroetical world, sure. However assuming everyone else in that world was a stirnite they too would be working in their own interest to oppose him - be it through mutual organisation or purely individualist means

Yeah, but everyone beneath the top guy would just be bidding their time to stab him in the back, since they don't really believe that hierarchy, empire or whatever has any value.

Do you all know that Evola considered himself heavily influenced by Stirner

>My nigga supports slavery, rape, all forms of depravity as long as you want to do it, why do commies and left-wing anarchists look up to this guy?

No, he doesn't, you fucking mongoloid. You obviously haven't read him and don't understand his egoism. He makes it pretty clear in his writing that he sympathized with the workers and was a kind of left-wing anarchist.

>anti-property rights
>literally ran a co-opt
>"The laborers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would withstand them; they would only have to stop labor, regard the product of labor as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labor disturbances which show themselves here and there. The State rests on the — slavery of labor. If labor becomes free, the State is lost.”
>Um, why do people think Stirner was a leftist?

Why do I get the feeling that a lot of people never read Stirner but just hear the word "egoism" and guess what he believes?

I guess you're correct, wasn't really thinking about how Stirnerism allows one to form coalitions to get what everyone wants out of something.
I guess Stirner is just a lot more "do what you want" focused than other left-wing anarchists and it kinda threw me for a loop.

source?

You people do realize that Evola was directly influenced by Stirner, right?

excuse me

Are you sure you're not thinking of Junger?

>climb a mountain

nigga was a cripple

maybe you should fire up google dumbass

Can nihilists win debates?

>tl;dr, doesn't a True Reactionary™ have basically support rape and pedophilia to be true to his glorious and noble ideals?

I'm not the poster you asked that, but if I were I would say that this is merely you taking one small aspect of being a reactionary and irrationally taking that example to one it's worst extremes and then acting as though you have to support that to be a true reactionary; you are insinuating that there is no nuanced answer.

The truth is that most reactionaries would condemn immoral behavior but would still regard human rights as something that is less important than the principle of having a traditional society itself. Human rights is something that can be governed according to the traditional teachings and so there is no need to adopt a one based on post-enlightenment values.

are 'friends' electric?

Stirner just because he could rely on his arguement that fixed objective ideas are spooks

>need to adopt a one based on post-enlightenment values.

*no need to adopt a legal system with human rights based on post-etc

Evola. He may be filled with woo and esoteric ninny nanny but at least he has some semblance of a point. Also Spoopy Von Spooperstein is trash.
Yes. No.

The Italian edition of The Unique and His Property has an appendix concerning reactions to and influence of Max Stirner's work. There is a chapter within it that involves the far right, here's my translation of Evola's part:

Rather, it took a genuine associate of the Herrenklub of Berlin, a ferocious ghibelline like Julius Evola (never registered to the [Italian] fascist party, which he despised for its “feminine” flaccidity), to come to the true conclusion, for only one was possible: Stirner is a Jew. Thus, without any foundation (but whatever could factual evidence matter in such a grandiose design?) we find again Stirner, as “father of integral anarchism”, included by Evola in the list of instigators whom brought forth “the destructive endeavour” of Judaism “in the properly cultural field, protected by the taboos of Science, Art, Thought.” They are, in the order they're invoked: Freud, Einstein, Lombroso, Stirner, Debussy (whom it is conceded to be a "half-Jew"), Schönberg, Stravinsky, Tzara, Reinach, Nordau, Lévy-Bruhl, Bergson, Ludwig, Wassermann, Döblin (introduction to The Jewish International, The “Protocols” of the “Learned Elders” of Zion, Rome, 1937, pages xix-xx; this is the slightly changed and updated version – and the name of Stirner is part of the update – of another list of the great co-conspirers, which Evola proposed a few months earlier: Marx, Heine, Börne, Freud, Nordau, Lombroso, Reinach, Durkheim, Einstein, Zamenhof, Offenbach, Sullivan – evidently he must have viewed The Mikado as a document of Jewish infiltration - Schönberg, Stravinsky, Wassermann, Döblin, in Julius Evola, Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem, Rome, 1936, pages 38-39).

PROTIP Jews don't write these things:
To this day the Jews, those precocious children of antiquity, have got no farther; and with all the subtlety and strength of their prudence and understanding, which easily becomes master of things and forces them to obey it, they cannot discover spirit, which takes no account whatever of things.

The Christian has spiritual interests, because he allows himself to be a spiritual man; the Jew does not even understand these interests in their purity, because he does not allow himself to assign no value to things. He does not arrive at pure spirituality, a spirituality e.g. is religiously expressed, e.g., in the faith of Christians, which alone (i.e. without works) justifies. Their unspirituality sets Jews forever apart from Christians; for the spiritual man is incomprehensible to the unspiritual, as the unspiritual is contemptible to the spiritual. But the Jews have only “the spirit of this world.”
t. Joo

rape is a liberal idea

Consent and the Will of Others are Spooks, you dingus.

Wait Stirner was Jew?

wtf I hate stirner now

but for real is that true? Was stirner a goy or zionist who was simply trying to help the jews?

someone please tell me this just shattered me

/pol/tards rekt

Read from PROTIP onwards

evola wroet about stirner you tards

can u just explain it like im 5?

He was a KEK

he was also racist and his philosophy is garbage. he's only a meme because of a cool looking portrait engles drew 20 years after he died.

*rapes you*

>he was also racist
>implying you can be smart and not a racist l0l

>feels vs reals
of course stirner would win and is better

>implying feelings aren't real

Evola accuses Stirner to be Jewish, but he is not

kek

Okay this might be a dumb question but how does anyone know? From what I read people even said Stirner was just Engel's alter ego.. and there's not even pics of him

Stirner writes anti-Semitic things, re-read from PROTIP onwards as many times as necessary, and then one more time, then once again.

alright thanks, truth is I read the first half and didn't really understand so I never actually read past that, will do it now

>Stirner writes anti-Semitic things
well, by that standard, so did Marx - who was in Stirner's circle. yet no one doubts Marx's Jewishness.

>stirner

I don't care what it is you guys are actually talking about here I just need to get this off my chest:

How can this board take this guy seriously at all? Not only is his philosophy entry level pleb shit but the fucker himself literally LITERALLY was a cuck and lived on an allowance that his gf (WHO WAS ON FUCKING GOVERMENT GIB ME DATS) gave to him. He literally let his gf get fucked by other dudes and he rationalized it by: 'heh, le spooks, I'm rlly in control and I'm just letting her do this'
And of course he would have starved to fucking death if it wasn't for the very systems that he supposedly rejected.
Reading Stirner is literally like having to deal with a tard who somehow has learned how to communicate his disdain for you and all the other caretakers and you just have to look on with tragic pity and think: yeah...and you be fucking dead without us you silly little tard.

Jesus fuck. I just don't understand how you ppl don't get it. None of Stirner's ideas work, you cannot live by any of them. They're literally pure fucking trash!

Prove that I lie.

citation needed
also nice attacks on his personal instead of his philosophy

getting cucked by ur gf is good if ur gaining from it, if u dont give a shit about ur gf and she phucks another man who cares ur gettin $$ to write books about yourself

Unlike Stirner, Marx does not go out of his way to call the Jewish people spiritually inferior to the Christians, using arguments that the very Evola who misdiagnoses Stirner's Jewishness would agree with.

Bauer is the anti-Semite who thinks Jews need to become Christians to be full citizens, and Marx is replying to him, mocking the silly anti-Semites using their own language.

>His "gf"
>Not his whore
Anyway the rich would be dead without the police and military and yet the police and military are not rich themselves. Hwhy?

if you read my post you fucking braindead mongoloid you'd see that I already commented on his philosophy and said it was entry level shit, so it's no wonder you like it.
His philosophy is: "woah dude, like, all these systems of values...they're all arbitrary, woah...spooks..."
the moron completely fails to distinguish between the various manifestations of ideas which of fucking course are all going to be arbitrary, and the actual Idea itself.

as for the rest of your post where you do mental trapezes to tolerate your gf getting miles of cock rammed into her snatch...yikes.

>Anyway the rich would be dead without the police and military and yet the police and military are not rich themselves. Hwhy?

does that sentence make any sense to you?
are you in fucking high school?
what are you even fucking referring to?

>the moron completely fails to distinguish between the various manifestations of ideas which of fucking course are all going to be arbitrary, and the actual Idea itself.

all of what you wrote is a spook LMAO

>as for the rest of your post where you do mental trapezes to tolerate your gf getting miles of cock rammed into her snatch...yikes.

if you actually think women are capable of loving one man then i feel sorry for you, even if a girl isn't cucking you in reality she would the moment a better mate arises, and always is cucking you spiritually

Apoplectic incredulity aside; you commented on Stirner living off the system so to speak. But. Pretty much everyone lives off of the system. How is it even a criticism? Even when you have a job the financing for your job probably passed through the hands or whatever if globalist kike banks and so you are there puppet even especially when you think you aren't

>"woah dude, like, all these systems of values...they're all arbitrary, woah...spooks..."

And here we have it folks, another Stirner expert that never read the book.

>Stirner rejects my values x and y because of z
>According to my values x and y, Stirner sux
>I refute it thus!

no shit Sherlock.
but you are suppose to dominate her.
while she fucks you, she fucks only you.
But of course you can fuck other hoes on the side, that's just how the game is.

okay, I'm convinced now that you're in high school.

sadly I read the whole book faggot.
his writing is so fucking epidermal that it doesn't even deserve to be called literature.
Pure trash.

Evola was a literal wizard, and as the inverse of Veeky Forums wizards he was powered by sexual energy from the women he deflowered and his own abundant virility. Stirner was a cuckold who developed his ideology in order to obscure his lack of agency by claiming that he let his wife sleep with other men because it pleases him, which somehow confers ownership of her to himself (lol)

>sadly I read the whole book faggot.
t. didn't read the book

bro you have made it abundtly clear that you don't actually understand his philosophy, just stop, good b8 tho

>I'm convinced you're in high school
What are you doing here old fag? Get a job. If you feel the need to denounce Stirner why aren't you doing it professionally within academia?

ok cite your source on this stirner cuck thing please

his diary desu

Post it, when I look up Stirner Diary I find nothing, and when I look up Stirner Cuck all I get is posts from /pol/ of people claiming he was a cuck.

>t. bro good b8 didn't read
>maybe if I break out enough memes I won't have to discuss the complete incompatibility of Stirner's "philosophy" with reality

I appreciate the (you)s all the same

You haven't read the book, have you user?
Yet you are upset by your own flawed understanding.

I would also like to say I appreciate the (you)s you have givven me, so thank you

>complete incompatibility of Stirner's "philosophy" with reality
let me stop you right there, and tell you it is compatible

Egoism is the stage of human thought in which artificial ideological concepts are rejected to serve your own will, spooks like the stage, morality, etc are self serving and makes no sense for the individual's will to be possessed by them. Egoism in its full form is a spookless self motivated society that follows no maxim. Societal expectations are a spook and take advantage of you.

Once you become a willful egoist, your spooks will completely vanish and there will be only one motivation, self motivation, and eventually the will of the individual will become indistinguishable from the world he beholds, and that is where the compatibility comes

Who is better between these two writers who are marginalized because they aren't very good? Anyway Stirner obviously because he doesn't require you to believe in a bunch of arcane metaphysics.

if they aren't very good why are they talked about so much?

plato n sacrates can suck my nuts lol

Why don't you pull out some excerpts and give us your criticism?

Everything you've posted is like you've just read his wikipedia page and a few Veeky Forums threads.

same guy here, does literally no one have a source for stirner being a cuck?

seriously wtf, I see so many people claiming it, is this some type of anti stirner propaganda?

I only ever hear of them in the worst Veeky Forums threads and on /pol/.

and then someone tells you that you have to pay an electric bill and that all dissolves into the hollow drivel that it is.
Oh but wait, you'll rationalize, I'm paying the bill on my own free will, for my own benefit, because i receive something from doing so!
But none of that changes the fact that you are still adhering to the spooks that you supposedly conquered.
Nobody would willing impose the need to pay a utility bill on themselves, unless they were a masochist. And so his philosophy is just a failed attempt to rationalize all the compromises that have to be made in life.

lol look at this retard.

libcom.org/files/Mackay - Max Stirner - His Life and His Work.pdf

The Biography.

That she did what she wished, and that Stirner let her do what she
wished-that of course may have let her appear in the eyes of the
marriage-slaves as detestable as it later did to her, but it can only
make the two of them more likeable to us. Every act of making up the
mind for the other, for that matter, would not have fit at all into the
nature of those involved, for whom "marriage" meant only a loose
band that was thrown around them purely externally. And not on the
"unfaithfulness" of the wife-how ridiculous !-did "this marriage
perish," but simply and only under the pressure of the circumstances
in which he and she unfortunately all too soon found themselves.

>More information:

Stirner married twice. His first wife was a household servant, with whom he fell in love at an early age. She died from complications with pregnancy in 1838, soon after their marriage. In 1843 he married Marie Dähnhardt, an intellectual associated with Die Freien. They divorced in 1846. The Ego and Its Own was dedicated "to my sweetheart Marie Dähnhardt". Marie later converted to Catholicism and died in 1902 in London.

Stirner's biographer John Henry Mackay, but refused to talk about her ex-husband and claimed "Stirner was a very sly man whom she had neither respected nor loved, and claiming that their relationship together had been more of a cohabitation than a marriage".[1] She died in 1902 in London.

The entire thing you just wrote is based off of capitalism (a spook) this wouldn't be a problem in a Union of Egoists

The egoist does whatever they want. If he wants the electricity he will do anything he wants to get it, if that is by adhering to whatever the current social system is that's fine as long as he does it to serve himself.

Can someone tell me who the fuck this is?

alchetron.com/Max-Stirner-1129117-W

whose photo is that? is that really stirner?

More information.

I think it's rudolf steiner man

doesnt make him a cuck

If we are to play apologetics for kek's, Stirner cucked HER, out of her inheritance in a ''loose marriage'', possibly exploiting her suffragette autism. Would fit her description of him (from her perspective, all things considered).

between two educated reasonable individuals debating it is hard to find the winner of a debate.

In terms of the Indo-European peoples' traditions, extra-marital rape (or infidelity for that matter) simply counted as a form of theft.

The very idea of marital rape would have been considered a laughable impossibility.

Reactionary is less of a set of positions one supports and more of a general worldview.

Even under Chiang Kai-Shek the KMT was still basically a Social Democratic party, but it's not necessarily controversial to call them reactionary. I think to get the sense of that, maybe read Spengler's work on Prussianism and Socialism. I don't agree with him on the desirability of the model, but it's a good way to understand that policy is entirely separate/systems in a way.

Stirner took her inheritance and blew it all.

He didn't buy into the gender role spooks and was a golddigger.

Roasties btfo.

Evola simply couldn't get over (get it?) the fact that he was on the losing side. He had to spook himself into believing duty was everything and should be mantained at all costs even in order to not accept whatever values were (ironically) dominant at time--when he didn't even have to. He thought women were metaphysically supposed to be dominated but died familyless. He thought race was everything but didn't have an heir. He thought spirituality was only true in praxis but never succesfully set an Order or a praxis for others to follow. He had to come up with a fairytail in order to justify his racism, and he built it backwards, in a way in which it would (conveniently) unfalsicable because, of course, all we knew was already (necessarily) contaminated by this "filthy age". He's one big cop out.

Meanwhile, Stirner never said anyone should follow his philosophy. He wasn't desparate to be taken seriously like almost every other thinker. He didn't usurp some great ancestor's name, but took a pen name in order to avoid the law (which he did successfully). He correctly predicted the way milk should be distributed. He made Marx and Nietzsche shat their pants. It really doesn't matter whatever insults you throw at him (or others for that matter) because he destroyed any ground in which those insults could be taken seriously. Stirner came along, slapped philosophy in the face, and then tranquily kept strolling.

>When you post in a Evola thread but don't even know the guy probably had countless illegitimate kids running around Italy
Good post.

Oh nice, more unfalsiable claims. More Evola being a hypocrite and a stereotypical Italian.

"Of course, in competition everyone stands alone; but if competition disappeared because people see that cooperation is more useful than isolation, wouldn’t everyone still be an egoist in association and seek his own advantage? Someone will object that one seeks it at the expense of others. But one won’t seek it at the expense of others, because others no longer want to be such fools as to let anyone live at their expense"
Read the book you idiot.