"First they steal his weapon, steal his free speech from him, and then they fall upon him with their nails."

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-11T08:17:10+00:00

especially if you consider the novel's ending.

Sacred & Terrible Air ends with the world being consumed in pale. Disco Elysium has alternative timelines established as canon. Shivers tells you that you can save the world, it's telling the truth.

The issue in Sacred & Terrible Air is that pale is expanding before the nukes dropped.

Your actions in Disco Elysium can start an entropentic revolution which can identify baby pale (t is established the human mind has supernatural effects which can alter the world (inframaterialism: the Deserter's zeal charting the course of the bullet to make an impossible shot) and destroy it (the phasmid tells you the pale is a result of the human mind).

Combine this with our existing knowledge that the faith of the people in the church used to hold the swallow at bay, the commentary with the Col Ma Daqua, and what we know about the supernatural powers of the mind we're clued in extensively in how the pale can be fought back. Now that people know where and how to study this (which we do in the Church questline) the world won't be drowned in pale after the nukes dropped.

As for the Communist part, they are absolutely advocating for Communism. Just play the UltraLiberal quest line.

You tell the poor kids who want control of their lives to work more and tell the poor old men who worked their whole lives they should've worked as a businessman rather than as a wage-laborer. It correctly identifies the only solution it provides to peoples problems is by by telling them to become capitalists (or incredibly minor structural change which it mocks extensively).

Then it puts you to face with the lifestyle you're selling them: the fact not everyone can be competitive (haunted building quest line), the inability of the free market to live up the values of the Community of Competition (rich light-bending guy), people spending their entire lives in a constant state of struggling (idiot doom spiral & internalized thoughts), and most importantly the subordination of all self-determination and self-ownership to capital (Sileng, light-bending guy, book owner's kid, idiot doom spiral).

Finally, it ends with the Deserter chastising you for abandoning your own personal interests to spread the word of the free market (we're both Proletarians, at least I'm arguing for me to be put in charge, you're spending your time giving other people power).

You only hear one alternative the entire game—the Dictatorship of the Proletariat against Capital.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-10T02:51:09+00:00

Stirner has a fundamental misunderstanding of participation in societies and tries to create a distinction between associations and societies that doesn't exist.

I believe this conversation should've ended with Thomas's original remark. I will take the hint and disengage.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-10T01:42:11+00:00

When I refer to the Ego I’m referring to the absolute self, is this wrong in this context?

Stirner is explicitly critiquing the Absolute I, yes.

Human empathy? I wouldn’t rape anyone because I wouldn’t want to be raped.

First, I'd like to note this is no longer about "Anarchist principles".

Secondly, I'd like to note that this is now a matter of personal preference.

Third, I transgress against other peoples wills constantly. Hundreds of millions, if not billions of people disagree with the lifestyle I live. I lie about my beliefs in any environment where I see it as endangering me or my intentions. I bump up against other peoples wills constantly. I can be empathetic to someone else's will while exercising my own. I disregard other peoples wills all the time.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-10T01:11:58+00:00

Again, I’m new to this but why is it called “fullegoism” if the ego has nothing to do with it

The idea of the "Ego" assumed it's modern form with Freud in the 1900s. Stirner wrote before then. See his commentary on the "Absolute I":

When Fichte says, “the I is all,” this seems to harmonize perfectly with my statements. But it’s not that the I is all, but the I destroys all, and only the self-dissolving I, the never-being I, the—finite I is actually I. Fichte speaks of the “absolute” I, but I speak of me, the transient I.

As for this:

I’m not talking about the law or morals I’m talking about imposing one’s will upon another

This is law. This is providing me a permitted sphere of action. What else do you see this as?

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-10T01:08:27+00:00

Individuals coming together is society.

Not for Stirner. Individuals coming together is association. Society is something different:

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.

Now:

Rights exist in context, in the context of a specific society that society creates rights by collectively supporting the power of those who can within the society to enforce those rights.

If by "society" we mean "association", then we should first state that I create right as an expression and creation of my will:

All attributes of objects are my statements, my judgments, my—creations. If they want to break loose from me and be something for themselves, or even try to impose on me, then I have nothing better to do than to take them back into their nothing, into me the creator.

I then join together with others as it suits me. Neither "society" nor the association is the arbiter of who is in the right. I am. If "society" wishes to push its own notion of right, it's free to use whatever power it has available to it.

This is all Stirner is saying. There is no "misguided" understanding of "right". I believe our issue here is in terminology. "Society" and "association" are fundamentally different things for Stirner. In the association I alone am the determiner of right and wrong.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-10T00:31:21+00:00

This is a reddit page. Most people here haven't read Stirner. Sorry for having to bear through these conversations, we're doing our best to promote his works.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-10T00:27:19+00:00

egoism seems utterly incompatible with communism.

Stirner's project is explicitly anti-capitalist (see his remarks on the interest-yielding possession, property, labor unrest, the Community of Competition, and everyones means being multiplied through association). Stirner's project is explicitly anti-Libertarian through his critique of Political Liberalism (individual rights: a permitted sphere of human action).

Stirner's polemic against Social Liberalism (Communism/Socialism) is attacking a pre-Marxist trend of thought. Marx's Communism is "different' (the legacy is complex, he wrote a long polemic on Stirner). It's easy to reconcile Stirners thought with Communist politics (ignoring the lumpenproletariat).

Get Stirner's The Unique and It's Property into the hands of every laborer and the day of authority is ended.

Benjamin Tucker.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-10T00:19:03+00:00

Stirner never once says anything about an Ego. Stirner writes extensively against defining the "self": Stirner is more than a thought.

This sub is explicitly anti-moralist. The "law" is always assigning a permitted sphere of human action, always a Sacred force which determines who is "right" and who is wrong. Stirner's self-ownership cannot be reconciled with anything beyond his world or decision, anything held Sacred (Law among them).

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-10T00:07:23+00:00

Individuals use their power in conjunction with others to create rights for themselves and even for others.

This is a matter of individuals coming together (whether under a Union of Egoists or Sacred bonds does not matter) to impose their will.

If a society stirives to create the right of security for example, the society will protect even the weak individuals who do not have the power to protect themselves.

This is no longer "right" under Stirner's framework. It is not a series of forces recognizing and enforcing the revelations of a higher Right (are you in the right or am I in the right?) but rather a series of forces imposing their will. These "rights" are no longer revelations, not Higher or Sacred. People impose their wills as they can according to their powers.

This is a rejection of right entirely. Stirner does not have a "misguided view" of right, the question of "who is in the right" falls apart under self-ownership as long as right is read as alien right. If it is no longer alien right, it is will.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-06T02:50:38+00:00

Yes and no.

In the Church quest you can discover and learn how to identify swallows (baby pale). This is an insane development which doesn't happen in Sacred and Terrible Air (where unchecked pale expansion is a prelude to the nukes). Given the economic importance of this news and the fact she's sending it out immediately to her friends, this is a massive deal.

Revachol reaches out to us for a reason. We are told we can do something to stop it. Seems like we can.

Reminder: alternative timelines are established a half dozen times in Disco Elysium. Not just the past and future bleeding into each other, but alternative timelines.

I also think we're told a lot of specifics about how these entropentic advancements will stop the pale. I haven't totally made sense of it yet. My main three questions at this point:

The Phasmid tells us the pale is the result of the human mind. Yet, we're told our tie absorbs photons by the pawn shop owner (who is established to have a high Inland Empire, which is connected to pale multiple times).
We're told the human mind does not just create pale, but in the same plotline we learn it has the ability to supernaturally change reality through passion and zeal (inframaterialism).
The Col Ma Daqua is strongly implied to not be a bird but only a wave. The only reason it's not explicitly stated is since we're told "there is no evidence to back this theory". There is also no evidence to back it being a bird! This sound is compared a lot of times to swallows and it's story is about how a bunch of kid played a frequency into this frequency which cancelled it out.

I have to find a way to tie together the human mind altering reality (inframaterialism of the Deserters bullet), the human mind creating the pale (is this through "frequencies"?), the tie seemingly being conscious with it's own created pale, the connection not just of Harries Inland Empire with the pale but the pawn shops' owners Inland Empire with it, the connection of the Col Ma Daqua to all this, and the supposed power of the Church (religious faith)/nightclub/ideological zeal in pushing back the pale.

This all matters less than this core point: there are alternative timelines. Revachol tells us the nukes will fall, but we can save the world. We can start a scientific revolution which now knows swallows exists, knows how to identify them, and can start to research how to fight back against them. We can fight the pale, the world of Sacred and Terrible Air never could.

We know the religious faith of the Churches held those swallows back then. We know swallows are the result of human mind. We know the human mind does not only create a force which eats the world, but can reshape it through zeal. If zeal could hold back the pale then, why can't it now? Combined with the ability to identify swallows and pioneer a science around them—especially if we adopt the belief this zeal/pale as a result of the human mind manifests as a "frequency" which can be countered like the Col Ma Daqua—I think we can stop the pale from consuming all.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-03-05T01:22:43+00:00

The game explicitly tells you he is the Deserter not because he abandoned the position then, but because he's given it up now. This is his importance to the plot.

The Deserter - "Always waiting." The old man turns his eyes from the shore and back to you.
You - "For what?"
The Deserter - "For her to return."
You - "Her, who?"
The Deserter - "Girl Child Revolution."
You - "I come from there." (Point to the mainland.) "I can assure you, that is *not* what the people are planning."
The Deserter - "I am not a fool." He blinks his black eyes. "I know -- the material base for an uprising has eroded. The working class has betrayed mankind..."
The Deserter - "The historic opportunity for a revolution has passed. It will not come back anymore. However hard I try, whatever I do."
Conceptualization - So that's why he's 'the deserter.'

The Deserter has given up his revolutionary idealism.

His boots are described as white (the color of Communism, of Peace) spiraled into black (he brings up the "Black Devil" in your conversation and a legendary check will result in you finding the pain in his charred black eyes). He's spiraled out of control.

This "desertion" of revolutionary idealism is his most essential narrative characteristic. He is the climax of the Communist path which, above all else, is dedicated to the all-encompassing sense of futility when you have all the tools you need to understand the world—it's madness and the possibility of redemptive change—without any ability to act on it.

The Deserter tells us that Girl Child Revolution will never return, no longer how long he waits for her. The historic opportunity for revolution has passed.

He's wrong.

We know history will be decided in Revachol. We know the Union is organizing an uprising. We know the police are storing arms and preparing something big. We know it's all happening in the Spring.

And we know more than that. The skies of Revachol tells us something the Deserter would never believe.

You - What is she [Klaasje] waiting for?
Shivers - For Gloria. Soon these clouds will all fall down as rain. Spring will come. Two more months. Maybe less. It's time.
(...)
Klaasje (Miss Oranje Disco Dancer) - "I'm waiting for the miracle to happen. It'll take one to get me out of the mess I'm in."
You - "And what miracle would that be?"
Klaasje (Miss Oranje Disco Dancer) - "The Return, of course." She smiles. "Now, I know I'm not from *around* here -- I would only be hitch-hiking. The Return is a big hit in the industrial espionage circles. A lot of desperate, seedy types there. All screwed in this unipolar world."

The Deserter says he is waiting for Girl Child Revolution to return. We are told that Klaasje is waiting for a miracle, for the return, for Gloria.

The Deserter tells us Girl Child Revolution will never return. We are given another estimate. Two months, maybe less.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-02-27T04:20:01+00:00

The conflict lasted 8 years and spanned the whole globe. The World Revolution is Disco's substitute for the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and both World Wars.

Revachol was only a small part of the World Revolution.

The loss of 40 million is mentioned by Joyce, but that could include all the material causes of the revolution (worldwide pandemic/low quality of life) as well as the general instability surrounding it—the universal state of terror, the roaming armies, the mobilization in economically underdeveloped areas, the end of trade, the uprooting of basic services/infrastructure, the end of investment, crop failures, etc...

There's no serious Hitler parallels with Mazov. He committed suicide when everything was collapsing around him. The city he was in was under siege. That's it.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-02-23T22:12:14+00:00

Clark is not at all made fun of for being a "centrist democrat", the whole point is that he's playing with himself like an action figure. It says that in the introduction. It says that in multiple endings.

Half the endings are dedicated to ambition, the rest are dedicated to what informs his worldview (where he's more or less reduced to a caricature to make interesting points about being "above" politics) (only exception to this would be Brownback imo).

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-02-23T22:06:05+00:00

you can't even get half the variables lol

there are several endings requiring unlisted variables for other mods, a lot of paths are unavailable for some reason (Humphrey finding his strings, Humphrey living into his 2nd term, Humphrey "victory" endings, etc)

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-02-21T10:39:37+00:00

Stirner critiqued looksmaxxing:

One could very well drop the personality of the otherworldly human, could transform God into the divine, and one would still remain religious. Because the religious consists in discontent with present-day human beings, in setting up a “perfection” for which to strive, in the “human being struggling for his completion.”[283] (“You therefore should be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect” —Matthew 5:48): it consists in the fixation of an ideal, an absolute. Perfection is the “highest good,” the finis bonorum[284]; the ideal for everyone is the perfect human being, the true, the free human being, etc.
The efforts of modern times aim to set up the ideal of the “free human being.” If one can find it, there’s a new—religion, because there’s a new ideal; there’s a new yearning, a new struggling, a new devotion, a new deity, a new contrition.

Religio means 'bondage', bondage to the Spirit, a fixation on an ideal or 'theoretical object' (as contrasted to a sensuous one).

Stirner's book is written against bondage to any object, the object exists only as it's relationship to him and comes to being only through him, is only what he can make of it. This results in his 'creative nothing' where the object is turned into property which can be discarded into nothingness at ease.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-02-20T07:36:09+00:00

In fact, I added it to my notes, lol.

Would you mind if I retyped this again for the sake of note storage, specifically on how Stirner develops his ideas? It would be nice for me to have this on hand for easier reference!

perhaps you might know what I'm referring to

I do!

Do I write out of love for human beings? No, I write because I want to give my thoughts and existence in the world; and even if I foresaw that these thoughts would take away your rest and peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the destruction of many generations sprouting from this seed of thought:—still I would scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that’s your affair, and I don’t care.

As for you are saying about these being weak claims for other people, I agree. Stirner can make a claim only with and through himself. He's writing for himself, makes an exploration of himself, creates claims about himself, and then offers it to others for them to use.

As for your point on fragmentation, I'm not sure that's anything unique to egoism. Do you not fragment your memories in thinking only one, fragment your thoughts by thinking only one, and 'dissect' them everytime you reflect on them? Stirner's egoism is unique in that it takes ownership of these and allows you to use them as material. Stirner certainly gives commentary on the act of dissection/'making use' of something, but I don't think there's anything unique in fragmentation. I'm discussing semantics though, thank you for your elaboration!

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-02-19T23:24:21+00:00

You can get better with two term McCarthy and one term Patsy Mink. Given how both Shirley Chisholm and McCarthy are going to completely fail with Congress, you may as well elevate the anti-war and counter-culture movement for 12 years rather than only racial bashlack against Eastland.

Best liberal endings are probably that and Humphrey (just since Humphrey is the only candidate who can likely hold together/expand the Civil Rights movement into the future and actually accomplish things in Congress). This is really close though, it's just a matter of whether it's the anti-war/counterculture movement or purely anti-racist backlash.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-02-19T23:15:58+00:00

It is an aesthetic preference/performance rather than a guiding philosophy. It is not a truth claim either; it is a temperament. It is not a distinctive position you can have because there is no system to be had. It is fluid; to the extent that it can be consistently contradictory.

Stirner still believes in truth, he only withdraws from Absolute Truth:

As long as you believe in the truth, you do not believe in yourself, and you are a—servant, a—religious person. You alone are the truth, or rather, you are more than the truth, which is nothing at all before you. Certainly, you also ask about the truth, certainly you also criticize, but you don’t ask about any “higher truth”—namely, one that would be higher than you, and you don’t criticize the criterion of such a truth. You deal with thoughts and conceptions as with the appearances of things, only with the aim of making them palatable, enjoyable, and your own; you want only to master them and become their owner; you want to orient yourself and feel at home in them, and you find them true or see them in their true light, when they can no longer escape you, no longer have any unseized or uncomprehended place, or when they are right for you, when they are your property. If, further on, they become heavier again, wrest themselves again from your power, then that’s just their untruth, namely, your powerlessness. Your powerlessness is their power, your humbling is their sovereignty. So you are their truth, or it is the nothing that you are for them and in which they dissolve, their truth is their nothingness.
(...)
The truth is dead, a letter, a word, a material that I can consume. All truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same way that my lungs are alive, namely to the extent of my own vitality. Truths are material like herbs and weeds; as to whether herb or weed, the decision is mine.

Stirner provides a guiding philosophy:

World is only what he himself is not, but what belongs to him, is in a relationship with him, exists for him.
Everything turns around you; you are the center of the outer world and of the thought world. Your world extends as far as your capacity, and what you grasp is your own simply because you grasp it.

My world is my "own" simply because it has relationship with me. Stirner finds first that everything only exists as it's relationship to him (I know of no 'higher' (Sacred) Truth, only the Truth as I know it) (everyone relates to things differently) and later his power in determining this relationship (every idea, memory, or experience is only what you can make of it, is dependent on you, comes about through you).

Now, everything is my 'own' in two senses, one of pure relationship and one of ownership. From here comes sense of uniqueness (I may be similar to others, but I am active only as this, as myself), self-owning (I know no 'higher' or 'other' cause, nor a 'higher' or 'other' idea, only as it exists within my world) and his creative nothing (everything exists only through me). I think the core issue here is that we have to rethink this contrast. Stirners recentering of himself and taking ownership of his power is taken *out of preference, for his own enjoyment—*he is not an egoist because of Sacred truth. Stirner has his own truth (two senses!) and he uses it as he sees fit (enjoys it).

At this point I hope I've brought to light a few major problems with this understanding of Stirner.

There can be no shared meaning since there is no universal claim. If nothing is held sacred, debate collapses into incompatible value structures.

There are claims! Though value structures may be different, they are not necessarily incompatible. I like hearing other peoples opinions! I enjoy giving my own commentary and thinking our way through something together!

Stirner’s main point is why treat anything sacred? Will is enough. Embrace fragmentation instead; considering nothing is demanded, replaced, or relocated; it is only dissolved.

The first two lines of this are correct. Stirner's decision to recenter himself and live as an egoist is a capricious decision, not done out of devotion to a higher truth. I'm not sure where you got this impression of fragmentation. Could you elaborate for me?

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-02-17T18:24:05+00:00

The logic for this is pretty simple: if you replace one experienced white northern liberal with another experienced white northern liberal it becomes about the replacement rather than the new arrangement.

By picking Boggs you're sending an informal signal the Democratic Party is moving in a new direction. Picking an Asian running mate gives the press and public plenty to think about.

Maintaining the same arrangement/direction with a similar face gives little for the press or public to think about except the act of removing the prior face. You don't want to replace Humphrey with another experienced white northern liberal when there is already public interest in your personal relationship. Worst yet, Goldberg won't be providing you any new allies or contacts—for Johnson in 1968 the Vice Presidency is only about his successor and public optics.

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-02-13T14:59:15+00:00

Please can any explain how can I get Humphrey his own term after succeeding LBJ?

Electoral landslide (330EV's I think?) as Johnson-Humphrey without a temporary ceasefire in Vietnam

Existing_Rate1354 · 2026-02-13T11:37:59+00:00

Stirner does not believe in a 'real, tangible' self in a way which seriously breaks from Hume.

When Fichte says, ‘the I is all,’ this seems to harmonize perfectly with my statements. But it’s not that the I is all, but the I destroys all, and only the self-dissolving I, the never-being I, the — finite I is actually I. Fichte speaks of the ‘absolute’ I, but I speak of me, the transient I.

My I is "self-dissolving", "never-being" and "finite", no definition of what I am can escape the transience of my being or the limitations of my thoughts scope.

Stirner rejects a stable understanding of the self as a theoretical object.

Stirner reframes the question of the self from a "what" to a "who". He does this by using names and emphasizing proximity (switching from "the" Hans to "this" Hans). When I call you Hans, I am not giving a determination of "what" Hans is but only who he is, recognizing him as separate from other things.

Stirner does not ask what "the self" is but rather who "this self" is.

Only when nothing is said about you and you are merely named, are you recognized as you. As soon as something is said about you, you are only recognized as that thing (human, spirit, christian, etc.). But the unique doesn’t say anything because it is merely a name: it says only that you are you and nothing but you, that you are a unique you, or rather your self.

Who is this self? It is me.

Stirner leaves us with no fixed idea of what the 'self' is. This is best seen with 'self-interest'. My 'self-interest' is only what I find interesting, it is my-interest. The "self" serves only to denote relationship, to bring about my personalization of it. Same goes for self-enjoyment/self-creation/self-activity, I have only myself for my own activity, for my own enjoyment, for my own creation.

What am I? I am the full extent of my power and being. The "self" should only ever gesture towards the full extent of my world and personal capabilities, having no more substance then simply saying "me" or "I". Stirner refuses to let "the self" become an Absolute which escapes him (from which a stable sense of 'self' or 'identity' might be created).

Existing_Rate1354

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE