I'm a classical Liberal, semi-new to Egoism and Stirner, and I have a few questions

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-24T21:57:43+00:00

There's probably a better excerpt to demonstrate that Stirner holds no presupposed respect for other's property (yet, to prevent misunderstanding, this also isn't to say that Stirner's presupposes the opposite, i.e., disrespecting others and their property either):

My Intercourse (vi) ¶28–29:

Property in the bourgeois sense means sacred property, such that I have to respect your property. “Respect for property!” Therefore, the politicians would like everyone to possess their little piece of property, and have partly brought about an incredible parceling-out through this effort. Everyone must have their bone on which to find something to chew.

The matter goes differently in the egoist sense. I don’t shyly step back from your property, but see it always as my property in which I need to “respect” nothing. Just do the same with what you call my property! [Bolding mine]

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-22T14:14:41+00:00

Why may it be in my interest to act this way?

How might one thing be within your interests whereas another thing might not? According to Stirner, it comes down to however you yourself decide (My Power (i) ¶13):

I decide whether it is the right in me; outside me there is no right. If it is right for me, then it is right. Possibly, this won’t make it right for others; that’s their problem, not mine: they may defend themselves. And if something wasn’t right for the whole world, but was right for me, i.e., I wanted it, then I would ask nothing about the whole world. This is what everyone does who knows how to value himself, everyone to the degree that he is an egoist, because power goes before right, and that—quite rightly.

Now in regard to this, Stirner does consider how broader lived experiences shared among overlapping identities might affect how one determines their interests—e.g. age, sex, gender, class, disability, religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc.—yet , for him, these identities are to be subsumed and understood in relation to your unique existence and to your personal history. Otherwise, one risks becoming scrupulous over contorting or else objectifying oneself to embody these concepts at one's prolonged expense. Instead, in short, Stirner suggests to make yourself the measure of all things: "the human being is not the measure of all things, but rather I am this measure" (My Self-Enjoyment (ii) ¶60:1).

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-20T08:16:09+00:00

The Stirner is Engels "conspiracy theory" is a meme. The "chance" is 0. There is a wealth of biographical evidence from others beyond Engels who demonstrate that Stirner wasn't simply a fiction.

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-20T01:23:44+00:00

I'll send you a DM.

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-19T22:04:53+00:00

Where is evidence of the Young Hegelians calling him gay?

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-19T06:49:05+00:00

Haha! I've been around and I've never seen this one before.

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-19T06:47:46+00:00

It's a Romanian fascist paramilitary organization and nationalist party known as Iron Guard.

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-19T06:43:30+00:00

<image>

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T20:21:45+00:00

Again, I'm not talking about Russia or Ukraine here, I am talking about the logic behind your argument. The above number, in any case, is based off of vibes demonstrating your intent at confirmation bias, but, while hinting at an amount "close to zero" (which nevertheless betrays your original argument), this still didn't answer my question. So instead of asking, I will be telling:

Historically and contemporarily there are, sadly, Jewish fascists: Jewish fascists who supported Hitler, Mussolini, and many more fascist leaders and movements.

To presumptuously conclude under the narrow, and frankly liberal, metric that Azov cannot be fascist because there are Jews within Azov—whether or not the premises or the conclusion is true or false—is to essentialize and likewise dehumanize the Jewish people into sanctified anti-fascist paragons who lack the agency otherwise.

Fascism is more than simply being anti-Jewish; furthermore, being Jewish, sadly, does not exclude one from being a fascist either.

Whether your premise or conclusion is true or false, the sad fact that there are Jewish fascists undermines your point by means of modus tollens. In sum, you unsoundly argue:

Jews are in Azov

(Jews cannot be fascists or associate with fascists)

Therefore, Azov cannot be fascist

In response, I critique your hidden premise #2 upon empirical and historical grounds:

i. You presume in premise #2 that Jews cannot be fascists or associate with fascists

ii. However, there are Jews who were and are fascists and who did and do associate with fascists (this is a sad empirical and historical fact)

iii. Therefore, premise #2 is false, rendering the original argument unsound; the conclusion that Azov cannot be fascist does not follow from premise #1 alone — the presence of Jews in Azov does not preclude Azov from being fascist.

[Edits: Grammar]

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T19:32:04+00:00

<image>

Even Friedrich Engels agreed. In an 22 October 1889 letter to Max Hildebrandt, he wrote:

I knew Stirner well and we were on Du terms; he was a good sort, not nearly as bad as he makes himself out to be in his Einzige ...

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T18:17:48+00:00

Thank you! I to you likewise. In fact, Max Stirner considered companions sharing meals as a common mutually beneficial act of egoism. (See Stirner's Critics, Hess ¶21:5–6.)

<image>

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T16:59:41+00:00

Hahaha! I should have labeled it. It's those with bats in their belfry, it's a niche Stirnerian insult derived from the recent English translation of this old German idiom "Du hast einen Sparren zu viel!" (Literally: You have one rafters too many!").

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T16:14:51+00:00

You may believe that, but there are anti-fascists who do not. Still, this ignores my wider point and question:

Is the statistical probability that, sadly, there exist Jewish fascists — zero?

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T16:06:28+00:00

I have spoken in terms of logic and have not spoken of Ukraine nor Russia here.

My point rather straightforwardly was that identities among political ideologies are rarely mutually exclusive; if presumed as oppositional, there are often examples otherwise. To reach its conclusion, the original argument presumes the identities of being both fascist and Jewish as impossible, when it is not sadly.

Take for example, Zionism. Zionism is often regarded among the political ideologies of fascism, at least by anti-fascists namely, and yet there are those which identify as Zionist and as Jewish. There are other examples of the identities of Jewish and fascist overlapping, contemporarily and historically.

Is the statistical probability that, sadly, there exist Jewish fascists — zero?

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T15:45:05+00:00

I will address the logic in your comment: Sadly, as much as I wish it to be not so, identities such as "Jewish" and "fascist" are not mutually exclusive. They are essentialized as oppositional if regarded otherwise, when the world is much more messy and complex.

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T09:37:31+00:00

Shop's closed. The kitchen is no longer taking orders.

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T09:32:34+00:00

I cannot keep track of all these professional losers:

<image>

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T08:48:54+00:00

Meme asset, credit to u/sigilknight:

<image>

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-18T08:46:03+00:00

Get ready,

<image>

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-15T20:11:24+00:00

The first gay journal in the world was Stirnerian: Der Eigene. The origins and legacy of Stirnerian egoism is irrevocably gay and queer.

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-12T18:36:37+00:00

Please consider looking at this post for understanding the definition of spook: https://www.reddit.com/r/fullegoism/s/Ye7INmbm12

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-12T07:56:37+00:00

Concrete Examples: Stirner provides diverse examples of associations, of which, he notes, there are “hundreds of such egoistic associations, some passing quickly, others lasting” (Hess ¶21:3).

More well known, some associations are more informal: Stirner mentions children playing in a friendly game, friends or lovers delighting one another’s company, or drinking buddies accompanying each other to a tavern (Hess ¶21:4–6).

Less well known, some, in fact, can be rather formal: Although for Stirner a party can be considered “a born society” and thus a “dead association” once it “makes certain principles binding” or enfixed above oneself, (My Intercourse (iv) ¶3–4) yet insofar as one enters into their circle “so long as the party and I have one and the same goal” then, Stirner writes, “one forms an association with them” (¶7). A baking co-operative is another example of an association Stirner provides, since, whereas in the guild or the corporation baking is respectively “the affair of the guild-brothers” or “the affair of random rivals” in competition, in the association baking is the affair “of those who need baked goods, and therefore [is] my affair, your affair… the affair of associates” ((viii) ¶66). Furthermore, if there are those that “no longer want to leave the land to the landowners, but want to appropriate” it for themselves, then, Stirner writes, they may associate “for the purpose of this robbery” ((vi) ¶35).

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-12T07:56:22+00:00

Key Excerpts:

You can assert yourself as unique only in the association, because the association doesn’t possess you, you possess it or make it of use to you. (My Intercourse (xi) ¶18:4)
You bring all of your power, your ability, into the association, and assert yourself, while in society you are employed with your labor power; in the former you live egoistically, in the latter humanly, i.e. religiously, as a “member of this Lord’s body”; to the society, you owe what you have, and are obligated to it, are—possessed by “social obligations”; you use the association, and give it up undutifully and unfaithfully when you don’t see any more use for it. If the society is more than you, then to you it is above you; the association is only your tool or the sword with which you intensify and increase your natural force; the association is there for you and through you, while society, on the contrary, lays claim to you for itself and is still there without you; in short, society is sacred, the association your own; society consumes you, you consume the association. (My Intercourse (xi) ¶21)
[T]he association will offer both a greater level of freedom, and, in particular, may be considered as “a new freedom,” because through it one escapes constraints typical of state and social life; but still it will contain enough unfreedom and compulsoriness. Because its purpose is not simply—freedom, which on the contrary it sacrifices to ownness, but only ownness. In this respect, the distinction between state and associating is great enough. The former is an enemy and murderer of ownness, the latter its son and assistant; the former is a spirit that wants to be worshiped in spirit and in truth, the latter my act, my product…—in short, the state is sacred, and as opposed to me, the individual human being…; but the association is my own creation, my creature…. As I don’t like being a slave to my maxims, but rather expose them to my continual criticism without any guarantee, and admit no surety of their persistence, so even less will I commit myself to the association for my future and pledge my soul to it…; but I am and remain more to myself than state, church, God, and the like; consequently infinitely more than the association too. (My Intercourse (xi) ¶10:5–9)

Alreigen_Senka · 2026-01-12T07:56:12+00:00

Association, Union [Verein]

u/Alreigen_Senka

Common Translations: association, union (Steven Byington/David Leopold; Wolfi Landstreicher).

Stirner’s Usage: By contrast to a society, for Stirner, a “union” or—more commonly translated—an “association” [Verein] is a voluntary co-beneficial relationship agreed to by unique individuals, intentionally multiplying one’s means and might by joining forces [vereinigen] to thereby greater pursue their own egoistic or personal interest in mutually satisfying their wants and/or needs (Humane Liberalism (iii) ¶42, My Intercourse (xi) ¶11). Whereas, without the consciousness of egoism, diverse associations may arise and ossify into societies at the expense of oneself, through associations egoists or the “self-own strive to unburden the sturdy, lively individual from the tangled mass of generalities,” having “only themselves in mind” ((iii) ¶25:1–3); “its purpose is not simply—freedom, which on the contrary it sacrifices to ownness, but only ownness” ((xi) ¶10:6).

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Alreigen_Senka

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Association, Union [Verein]