we will burn the constitution just like we burnt the Ramayana, Mahabharatham, Geethai, Prabandam etc.

Just like how we declared and burnt all of those texts as being impractical and harmful for our everyday lives, we will do the same with this constitution that has been put in place to make it easy for those in power to enslave and exploit the people of this country.

We will burn it. Yes, we will!

— Periyar E. V. Ramasamy

my friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody. But whatever that may be, if our people want to carry on, they must not forget that there are majorities and there are minorities, and they simply cannot ignore the minorities…

People always keep on saying to me, ‘Oh, you are the maker of the Constitution.’ My answer is, I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will.

The Hindus wanted the Vedas, and they sent for Vyasa who was not a caste Hindu. The Hindus wanted an epic, and they sent for Valmiki, who was an untouchable. The Hindus wanted a Constitution, and they have sent for me.

— Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/should-bahujans-burn-the-constitution

„Das Ehren-Wort für mittelmäßig ist bekanntlich das Wort ‚liberal‘.“

“The honorable term for mediocre is, of course, the word ‘liberal’.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Der Wille zur Macht (The Will to Power; 864)

Liberalism as the ideology of Nietzsche's Last Man

Cis people's gender dysphoria: when others' gender identity doesn't align with their gender expectations

“The first question is by no means whether we are content with ourselves, but whether we are content with anything at all. If we affirm one single moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event—and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
The Will to Power (1032)

I'm not really addressing the main point of the post here...
just a small observation

Ego is not really a bad translation in this context, since it's Latin for "I", just as ich is its German counterpart...

(Interestingly, this is also what happened with Freud... the translator(s) translated das Ich as 'ego'; and likewise, das Es as 'id', das Über-Ich as 'super-ego')


But the noscript of the first (1907) English translation, as The Ego and His Own, is of course a bad translation... since Stirner was talking about der Einzige — 'the unique one' — and it's very different from the ego/I/ich...

It also contributed to a misunderstanding of his (anti-)philosophy, since what he valued more in his writing was ownness (die Eigenheit) rather than a more vague notion of egoism... the latter concept, conflated with the colloquial meaning of ego(t)ism, contributed to the misunderstanding that Stirner advocated a narrow egoism


As for Marx, it was typical of him to strawman his opponents with petty arguments

passive nihilism, capitalism

“We few or many who again dare to live in a dismoralized world, we pagans in faith: we are probably also the first to grasp what a pagan faith is:—to have to imagine higher creatures than man, but beyond good and evil; to have to consider all being higher as also being immoral. We believe in Olympus—and not in the ‘Crucified’.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
The Will to Power (1034)

When Fichte says, “the ego* is all”, this seems to harmonize per­fectly with my thesis. But it is not that the ego is all, but the ego destroys all, and only the self-dissolving ego, the never-being ego, the – finite ego is really I. Fichte speaks of the “absolute” ego, but I speak of me, the transitory ego.

* das Ich – the “I”

People have always supposed that they must give me a destiny lying outside myself, so that at last they demanded that I should lay claim to the human because I am – man. This is the Christian magic circle. Fichte's ego too is the same essence outside me, for every one is ego; and, if only this ego has rights, then it is “the ego”, it is not I. But I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my wants too are unique, and my deeds; in short, everything about me is unique. And it is only as this unique I that I take every thing for my own, as I set myself to work, and develop myself, only as this. I do not develop men, nor as man, but, as I, I develop – myself.

This is the meaning of the – unique one [Einzigen].

— Max Stirner

“The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw, or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the State with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated by it as enemies.”

— Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

liberal democracy, social contract

Stirner here destroys the concept of a social contract—without even specifically mentioning it—by striking at its root: the concept of duty itself

And of course, social contract is a most obvious lie, it is baseless liberal nonsense

to be more precise...

"Hinduism is not a religion, it is a way of life"

“Beggars. — Beggars ought to be abolished: for one is vexed at giving to them and vexed at not giving to them.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
The Dawn of Day (185)

“Business people. — Your business – is your greatest prejudice: it ties you to your locality, to the company you keep, to the inclinations you feel. Diligent in business – but indolent in spirit, content with your inadequacy, and with the cloak of duty hung over this contentment: that is how you live, that is how you want your children to live!”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
The Dawn of Day (186)

Gender Obsession Disorder

I trust that the defenders of gender binarism will ultimately lose. But at present, they keep fanning what I’ve called a gender obsession disorder: an excessive, even pathological concern with making sure that men and women remain discernibly different.

Those most obsessed with gender differences seem to believe that the slightest blurring of the binary between men and women will result in the end of civilization. This is why the ‘gendervariant’ pay such a high price, why they’re scrutinized not just at high-security venues such as airports and subways, but also at work and school, in restaurants and locker rooms, and in the general flow of daily life.

— Mari Ruti, Penis Envy and Other Bad Feelings (chapter 3)

“Rightful, or legitimate, property of another will be only that which you are content to recognize as such. If your content ceases, then this property has lost legitimacy for you, and you will laugh at the absolute right to it.”

— Max Stirner

Feuerbach, in the Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, is always harping upon being [das Sein]. In this he too, with all his antagonism to Hegel and the absolute philosophy, is stuck fast in abstraction; for ‘being’ is abstraction, as is even ‘the I’. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. Hegel condemns the own, mine [das Meinige] — ‘opinion [Meinung]’. ‘Absolute thinking’ is that which forgets that it is my thinking, that I think, and that it exists only through me. But I, as I, swallow up again what is mine, am its master; it is only my opinion, which I can at any moment change, annihilate, take back into myself, and consume. Feuerbach wants to smite Heg­el's ‘absolute thinking’ with unconquered being. But in me being is as much conquered as thinking is. It is my being, as the other is my thinking.

— Max Stirner

human nature