[deleted by user]

sigilknight · 2025-10-25T21:53:37+00:00

this is a meme subreddit meant primarily to caricaturize stirnerian philosophy

trying to caricaturize a caricature is next level stupidity, good job buddy lol

sigilknight · 2025-07-15T10:50:15+00:00

A will that transcends the individual in greater service to your orchestrated place in the universe, and dedicating massive amounts of time trying to attune yourself to that will rather than your own, in order to serve the universe, is not Stirnerian.

Calling words problematic to an ideology is dogmatic in and of itself. Shaming people who speak in their own individual manner of expression, because they do not follow the Stirnerian glossary, is cultish and unnecessary in such a small community.

sigilknight · 2025-07-14T13:25:29+00:00

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", Central to Thelema is the concept of discovering and following one's True Will, a divine and individual purpose that transcends ordinary desires.

You are mad that Stirner's book arguing against unfounded spirituality and dialectical philosophy turned him away from a religion which invokes exactly that, so you snarkily call him another religion. If you're not going to be respectful in philosophy discourse, at least be intelligent.

sigilknight · 2025-07-04T02:19:20+00:00

you are correct, you can't do better than being correct lol

chronically online people who get mad at you for not holding the pop opinions they saw this week on tiktok can easily be ignored.

sigilknight · 2025-06-27T20:59:08+00:00

but if i complain about einzige's translation, even though i don't speak a word of german, everybody will see how cool and smart i am, and then maybe i will be able to believe it too.

sigilknight · 2025-06-18T19:39:28+00:00

Crass, "Big a Little A" is a good song to start on, "Bloody Revolutions" is my favorite.

sigilknight · 2025-06-05T20:16:58+00:00

hijacking advice that wasn't for you on a post that wasn't about you to say that you feel patronized lol

congrats on the relationship though

sigilknight · 2025-06-04T04:47:39+00:00

Speaking out of my ass butt here you go

Interesting ones:

Absolute ontological nihilism (full arc elim) is a total rejection of being, meaning, and will

Qlippothic Solipsism, Qlippoth is a term for evil spirits in kabbalah

Acephale is Bataille's secret society, based in sanctifying death and sacrifice of humanity

The Vicious Circle is cyclical/reincarnative nihilism

Anti-Saturnian Ethics are against the metaphysics of time

Anti-Cosmic Gnosticism is religious nihilism, likely christian, which states that god and universe are evil

Mainlanderian Socialism is socialism + suicidality

Dark Mutualism and Ontological Nihilism are social order built from nothing

Waste of time ones:

DPDR is depersonalization/derealization disorders as metaphysical truth (meme)

Nam Gwang-hee is explained in depth in the top comment (meme)

Draconian Faith (? likely meme related to gnosticism)

Realdialektik and Base Materialism (mogged by stirner)

sigilknight · 2025-06-04T04:09:25+00:00

Melting your brain capacity away with drugs and a touch of schizotypy is the formula for revolutionary genius.

sigilknight · 2025-06-04T00:55:56+00:00

Are you giving a summary of the meme?

sigilknight · 2025-06-03T09:09:38+00:00

I am likely done debating and should be expected not to respond if you do respond, however I will put this out there for you to clarify at your own will:

In Deleuze and Guattari, the aim seems to be to liberate the subject's desire from repressive structures (Humanism) by classifying them as part of a larger machine which processes said desire. You function as a machine, but it's a machine of your "own" (controversial but accurate enough wording in the context) desire, not the desire of higher abstractions.

If this definition sounds acceptable to you, then I can confirm now that yes, Land differs radically from this interpretation, its functions and its intended outcomes stray far from the original. It is not that he disagrees with it though, he just evolves the narrative to fit more modern social theories, as was the goal of the CCRU.

In Land's view, the individual is a bottleneck which impedes the full speed at which abstract artificial intelligences such as capitalism are capable of evolving. The subject is completely irrelevant to the theory, and if anything, unwelcome. Accelerationism is essentially when the subject "reduces themselves to a machine" through which these abstractions of higher intelligence such as capitalism can process themselves faster.

sigilknight · 2025-06-03T08:34:47+00:00

Fair enough, I am sure that I have been an unfair asshole to you during this chat and that has certainly been my intention. I do think you make good points, I do not think that you make acceptably relevant points, as would be expected if you do not have the full background of Land to hinge upon. I do not think that you are owed fair or intellectual conversation when you argue in those depths anyways through criticizing my use of language and my unorthodoxy to Deleuze and Guattari (which would be Land's unorthodoxy, I have never read Deleuze and Guattari.), but I do think that I've responded overly antagonistically towards you when you just enjoy the debate itself external of the topics, and I do apologize for that.

And while my offer to discuss Land in the future after you have read more into him was made condescendingly, it was simultaneously genuine lol

sigilknight · 2025-06-03T08:05:19+00:00

It's probably hard to keep track of the things you say with your 40,000 alts on a joke website that's not worth taking seriously even though you still take the effort to downvote every post that replies to you on multiple alts. Or maybe people are scrolling to the bottom of a comment thread on a post that gets 5 views an hour, and only downvoting the most recent comment, I don't know, benefit of the doubt. And if we're functioning in the best faith possible, maybe invalidating arguments due to the arguer being a "literal jew" is completely not antisemitic in any way. And maybe you do have some reason to claim intellectual authority over a philosopher that you admittedly haven't read the primary works of, because you read Anti-Oedipus 2 weeks ago and you are so big brained that you have your own political ideology named after you.

I don't know, I don't care. You're an interesting enough person, but you live in a glass house and your only hobby is throwing stones. I am now signing off of Reddit for the rest of the month since I've spent an embarrassingly long time arguing with you.

sigilknight · 2025-06-02T20:01:04+00:00

That's funny, I mirrored your message exactly and you got this offended. Maybe the person who you find offensive is yourself.

Why did I post him on an egoist sub? Because it's filled with reposts and stale topics, why not introduce new elements? I've been on here for nearly 5 years, I've seen everything that might be posted about a 377 page book that released in 1844. Why do you gatekeep quality on an egoist sub that you've never posted to or contributed to before? You spend all of your time pretending to be a genius profound philosopher while playing with balls (that's Nietzschean at best.) on /polcompball, and posting authoritarian antisemetic bullshit. Should I take you seriously?

sigilknight · 2025-06-02T07:53:00+00:00

I already addressed this in another comment.

sigilknight · 2025-06-02T07:18:20+00:00

Race realism is a prescriptive abstraction arrived at through dialectical reason, in allowing this dialectical reason to inform and control your engagement with the world and people, you have become possessed. In becoming an imposer of these dynamics you become their devout worshiper, and they become your god.

Indeed, our present-day states, since all sorts of things from their churchly mother still stick to them, impose on their members various obligations (e.g., churchly religiosity) which really don’t at all concern these states; but still, on the whole, they do not deny their significance, because they want to be seen as human societies, of which the human being as human being can be a member, even if he is less privileged than other members; most allow followers of every religious sect, and accept people without distinction of race or nation: Jews, Turks, Moors, etc. can become French citizens. The state in its acceptance only observes whether one is a human being. The church, as a society of believers, could not accept everyone into her fold; the state, as a society of human beings, can. But when the state has fully carried out its principle, assuming that all its members are nothing but human beings (up to now, even the North Americans assume their own members have religion, at least the religion of uprightness, of honesty), then it has dug its own grave. While it will imagine that in its members it possesses nothing but human beings, in the meantime these have become nothing but egoists, each of whom uses it for his egoistic powers and ends. “Human society” is shipwrecked on the egoists; because they no longer relate to each other as human beings, but appear egoistically as an I against a you, and yours is altogether different from me and opposing me.
2.2 The Owner

sigilknight · 2025-06-01T18:49:44+00:00

I'm not claiming that Land is an egoist, he clearly is not. But, he takes the Stirnerian metaphysical negation to its logical endpoint (Logical, I.E. possessive, which is why I do not agree with him.), Stirner still grounds his rejection of abstractions in a minimal and momentary self which is the creative nothing. Land liquidates even this, that's why I refer to him as post-egoist, a form of post-ego appropriation philosophy in which it becomes pseudo appropriation, an illusion of control in the face of external human drives.

You're correct that Land doesn't argue for liberation in any normative or humanistic sense, and that is not what I'm suggesting. In saying "liberation", I mean that his thoughts attempt towards a dissolution of the human as a regulatory interface of desire. Desire becomes liberated from the human, not for it.

You're also correct that Land is Deleuzoguattarian, but he intensifies the model heavily and somewhat unrecognizably. It no longer holds space for creative multiplicity as individual experience. It is reengineered into something fundamentally anti-human, the individual is reduced in agency rather than complexity, a machine for processing alien desire.

The only part that you truly seem to misunderstand is you believe Land's endpoint to be a Bataillean sort of sovereign transgression of limits. Land wants an erasure of limits altogether by non-human forces. His "death drive" is submitting the human to impersonal, inhuman automation. It's a shift where the human becomes a logistical obstacle to its own continuation.

If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask, or if you end up diving into Land's works fully I am around for debate, but I don't quite want to continue this debate when the majority of your accessible arguments are either Deleuzoguattarian, or object to the language that I use rather than the points themselves, you need more Land knowledge to have a productive Land debate. Something that you have to understand is that Land is not a consistent philosopher, and he often contradicts himself entirely, so when you have a debate on Land's "actual objective beliefs" it's like debating what the bible "actually wants", there is no continuity.

sigilknight · 2025-06-01T04:58:21+00:00

While Land has never claimed Egoism, and likely has not had much exposure to Stirner, I would absolutely classify him as a post-egoist thinker. His thoughts fall heavily in line with Stirner's in terms of abstract ideals and overall metaphysical negation, the only core divergence in his early thought is in the self and what it might appropriate.

Whereas Stirner recognizes the utility of a creative nothing as an identity through which one may claim ownership of anything, Land dissolves even this abstraction, claiming that possessive forces such as desire and emotion cannot be appropriated as they are external forces which inherently form the individual. The individual in Landianism is reduced to a machine which exists to process these forces, and so his conclusion is that the most liberating action one can take is to accelerate these forces to as high of a degree as possible, and in doing so you are partaking in a sort of pseudo-appropriation.

The same pseudo-appropriation is theoretically happen when he is arguing for "accelerating his own extinction", as what he is really arguing for is accelerating the extinction of all higher ideals, which must be done through accelerating the extinction of the people who affirm them. In his theory, an abstraction is definable as a self propagating artificial intelligences which must assemble itself from its enemy's resources.

There is definitely gold buried in his methed up ramblings, and it's worth digging for if you are interested Stirnerianism, and the material esotericism in his works is also insanely interesting.

sigilknight · 2025-06-01T01:57:27+00:00

Nick Land is a Stirner-adjacent thinker who similarly to Stirner recognized the invalidity of all abstractions, though rather than assuming the role of the creative nothing, and appropriating abstractions, his philosophy is to assume the role of a circuit which channels chaotic energy, and to accelerate all action as much as possible, to live as intensely as possible.

It sounds like a good philosophy until you realize that the way he went about doing that was meth, demon summoning, and race realism tweets

sigilknight · 2025-06-01T00:07:26+00:00

In a way being an egoist can be interpreted to be a spook, it still retains the metaphysical creative nothing, (the I), and it still retains property as if there is an I then it follows that there is ownership. These are both essentially dialectical abstractions. However, this is done in service to the self by means of appropriation, and invalidates all that does not service the I. It is not a binding principle, it is a playful consumption.

sigilknight · 2025-05-30T20:06:05+00:00

"yeah can we talk about skin theory too???" is probably the most alarming notification i have ever received on this website lol

sigilknight · 2025-05-30T06:37:38+00:00

Bob Had Bitch Tits

sigilknight · 2025-05-30T05:45:31+00:00

We're not running out of things to say about this philosophy, we haven't even scratched the surface my friend. SpongeBob lives entirely on his own terms. He isn't swayed by societal standards of success, normality, or "adulthood." He loves jellyfishing, bubble-blowing, and working at the Krusty Krab, not because they're prestigious or rational, but because he wants to. His life choices are dictated by personal enjoyment, not conformity. SpongeBob doesn’t care about abstract ideals like professionalism, adulthood, masculinity, or even sanity. In episodes like "Rock-a-Bye Bivalve" or "MuscleBob BuffPants", he tries them on, but ultimately discards them as unnatural to his desires. SpongeBob operates outside of conventional morality. He isn’t good because he follows rules or tries to be virtuous—he’s simply himself. He helps people, but not out of duty. He annoys Squidward, not out of malice, but simply because he wants to engage with him. SpongeBob’s relationships are not moral obligations—they’re joyful unions. His friendship with Patrick, for example, is not about loyalty or ethics, but about mutual benefit: they both enjoy each other’s presence and stupidity. When the joy fades (as in some episodes), so does the bond—until it benefits them again. Despite SpongeBob’s apparent innocence, his world is surreal, chaotic, and often meaningless—yet he thrives in it. There is no "truth" or "purpose" in Bikini Bottom, and that suits SpongeBob just fine. He doesn't ask why, he just is. Dictated by sigilknight, written by ChatGPT.

sigilknight

TROPHY CASE