“If the State must count on our humanity, it is the same if one says it must count on our morality. Seeing Man in each other, and acting as men toward each other, is called moral behavior. This is every whit the ‘spiritual love’ of Christianity. For, if I see Man in you, as in myself I see Man and nothing but Man, then I care for you as I would care for myself; for we represent, you see, nothing but the mathematical proposition: A = C and B = C, consequently A = B,—i. e., I nothing but man and you nothing but man, consequently I and you the same. Morality is incompatible with egoism, because the former does not allow validity to me, but only to the Man in me. But, if the State is a society of men, not a union of egos each of whom has only himself before his eyes, then it cannot last without morality, and must insist on morality.

Therefore we two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this ‘human society,’ I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it rather into my property and my creature,—i. e. I annihilate it, and form in its place the Union of Egoists.”

— Max Stirner

“If Hess attentively observed real life, to which he holds so much, he will see hundreds of such egoistic unions, some passing quickly, others lasting. Perhaps at this very moment, some children have come together just outside his window in a friendly game. If he looks at them, he will see a playful egoistic union. Perhaps Hess has a friend or a beloved; then he knows how one heart finds another, as their two hearts unite egoistically to delight (enjoy) each other, and how no one ‘comes up short’ in this. Perhaps he meets a few good friends on the street and they ask him to accompany them to a tavern for wine; does he go along as a favor to them, or does he ‘unite’ with them because it promises pleasure? Should they thank him heartily for the ‘sacrifice,’ or do they know that all together they form an ‘egoistic union’ for a little while?

To be sure, Hess wouldn’t pay attention to these trivial examples, they are so utterly physical and vastly distinct from sacred society, or rather from the ‘fraternal, human society’ of sacred socialists.”


— Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics (§3)

virgin Fried-rice Nietzsche vs chad Maximum Stirner

„Was hilft alle Freigeisterei, Modernität, Spötterei und Wendehals-Geschmeidigkeit, wenn man mit seinen Eingeweiden Christ, Katholik und sogar Priester geblieben ist!“

“What good is all this free-thinking, modernity, mockery, and turncoat flexibility if at some gut level you are still a Christian, a Catholic, and even a priest!”

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Götzen-Dämmerung (Twilight of the Idols; §9. 2)

„Unsere Atheisten sind fromme Leute.“

“Political liberty means that the polis, the state, is free; freedom of religion that religion is free, as freedom of conscience signifies that conscience is free; not, therefore, that I am free from the state, from religion, from conscience, or that I am rid of them. It does not mean my liberty, but the liberty of a power that rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my despots, like state, religion, conscience, is free.

State, religion, conscience, these despots, make me a slave, and their liberty is my slavery.”

— Max Stirner, Political Liberalism

If you watch carefully, there are many details in the Matrix films that allude to the gender binary and transphobia (and to the politics of trans liberation), as well as to the capitalist exploitation and fascism.

To give just two examples:
1. Notice how Agent Smith, who can be seen as an agent of the gender binary, insists – till the end – on addressing Neo as 'Mr. Anderson' (and notice the gendered nature of the latter name, in contrast to the former [Neo]).

2. The machines literally enslaved the entire human race to use (exploit) them as merely a source of power for the machines to run on.

TERFiarchy 🤝🏻 Patriarchy

Liberals and the papa State

Feminism would be a form of slave morality insofar as it is a mere inversion of values of patriarchy. Indeed liberal feminism has generally been nothing but this. What often passes as "radical" feminism, which however is nothing but a form of radical liberalism, — all the more is that so with it.

True radical feminism rejects 'patriarchy' altogether and is creative — it's not a mere 'inversion' of patriarchal values. Anarchism, or anarchist feminism, represents this.

“The polemic against privilege forms a characteristic feature of liberalism, which fumes against ‘privilege’ because it itself appeals to ‘right’. Further than to fuming it cannot carry this; for privileges do not fall before right falls, as they are only forms of right. But right falls apart into its nothingness when it is swallowed up by might, when one understands what is meant by ‘might goes before right’. All right explains itself then as privilege, and privilege itself as power, as – superior power.

[…]

Right – is a wheel in the head, put there by a spook; power – that am I myself, I am the powerful one and owner of power. Right is above me, is absolute, and exists in one higher, as whose grace it flows to me: right is a gift of grace from the judge; power and might exist only in me the powerful and mighty.”


— Max Stirner

Liberal feminism is often not even a complete inversion of patriarchal values, it indeed directly inherits patriarchal values, for capitalism is patriarchal... (and of course, inversion of patriarchy is also, by its nature, patriarchal)

The totalitarianism of capital

“Ownness created a new freedom; for ownness is the creator of everything, as genius (a definite ownness), which is always originality, has for a long time already been looked upon as the creator of new productions that have a place in the history of the world.

If your efforts are ever to make ‘freedom’ the issue, then exhaust freedom's demands. Who is it that is to become free? You, I, we. Free from what? From everything that is not you, not I, not we. I, therefore, am the kernel that is to be delivered from all wrappings and – freed from all cramping shells. What is left when I have been freed from everything that is not I? Only I, and nothing but I. But freedom has nothing to offer to this I himself. As to what is now to happen further after I have become free, freedom is silent – as our governments, when the prisoner's time is up, merely let him go, thrusting him out into abandonment.

Now why, if freedom is striven after for love of the I after all, why not choose the I himself as beginning, middle, and end? Am I not worth more than freedom? Is it not I that make myself free, am not I the first? Even unfree, even laid in a thousand fetters, I yet am; and I am not, like freedom, extant only in the future and in hopes, but even as the most abject of slaves I am – present.

Think that over well, and decide whether you will place on your banner the dream of ‘freedom’ or the resolution of ‘egoism’, of ‘own­ness’. ‘Freedom’ awakens your rage against everything that is not you; ‘egoism’ calls you to joy over yourselves, to self-enjoyment; ‘freedom’ is and remains a longing, a romantic plaint, a Christian hope for unearthliness and futurity; ‘ownness’ is a reality, which of itself removes just so much unfreedom as by barring your own way hinders you. What does not disturb you, you will not want to renounce; and, if it begins to disturb you, why, you know that ‘you must obey your­selves rather than men’!

Freedom teaches only: Get yourselves rid, relieve yourselves of everything burdensome; it does not teach you who you yourselves are. Rid, rid! That is its battlecry, get rid even of yourselves, ‘deny yourselves’. But ownness calls you back to yourselves, it says ‘come to yourself!’ Under the aegis of freedom you get rid of many kinds of things, but something new pinches you again: ‘you are rid of the Evil One; evil is left’. As own you are really rid of everything, and what clings to you you have accepted; it is your choice and your pleasure. The own man is the free-born, the man free to begin with; the free man, on the contrary, is only the eleutheromaniac, the dreamer and enthusiast.

The former is originally free, because he recognizes nothing but himself; he does not need to free himself first, because at the start he rejects everything outside himself, because he prizes nothing more than himself, rates nothing higher, because, in short, he starts from himself and ‘comes to himself’. Constrained by childish respect, he is nevertheless already working at ‘freeing’ himself from this constraint. Ownness works in the little egoist, and procures him the desired – freedom.”

— Max Stirner

“Thousands of years of civilization have obscured to you what you are, have made you believe you are not egoists but are called to be idealists (‘good men’). Shake that off! Do not seek for freedom, which does precisely deprive you of yourselves, in ‘self-denial’; but seek for yourselves, become egoists, become each of you an almighty ego. Or, more clearly: Just recognize yourselves again, just recognize what you really are, and let go your hypocritical endeavours, your foolish mania to be something else than you are. Hypocritical I call them because you have yet remained egoists all these thousands of years, but sleeping, self-deceiving, crazy egoists, you heautontimorumenoses, you self­-tormentors. Never yet has a religion been able to dispense with ‘promises’, whether they referred us to the other world or to this (‘long life’, etc.); for man is mercenary and does nothing ‘gratis’. But how about that ‘doing the good for the good's sake’ without prospect of reward? As if here too the pay was not contained in the satisfaction that it is to afford. Even religion, therefore, is founded on our egoism and – exploits it; calculated for our desires, it stifles many others for the sake of one. This then gives the phenomenon of cheated egoism, where I satisfy, not myself, but one of my desires, such as the impulse toward blessedness. Religion promises me the – ‘supreme good’; to gain this I no longer regard any other of my desires, and do not slake them. – All your doings are unconfessed, secret, covert, and concealed egoism. But because they are egoism that you are unwilling to confess to yourselves, that you keep secret from yourselves, hence not mani­fest and public egoism, consequently unconscious egoism, therefore they are not egoism, but thraldom, service, self-renunciation; you are egoists, and you are not, since you renounce egoism. Where you seem most to be such, you have drawn upon the word ‘egoist’ – loathing and contempt.”

— Max Stirner