Since morality is just a spook, doesn't that mean colonialists

>>938308
You can't risk yourself "for queen and country" and act like you aren't spooked.

>>938308
>Since morality is just a spook, doesn't that mean colonialists were not some great insidious evil as liberals claim

Correct. No one is evil.

>but rather übermensch
Now you are mixing Stirner with Nietzche which is very delicate and you need to be careful how you use words. There will also be multiple correct answers depending on whether you want a Nietzchian or Stirnenian answer

>who would otherwise live a life of poverty seeking fortune?
The Nietzchean answer is
1. No they were not Ubermench exactly since Ubermench is a very very rare thing
2. It does portray the correct actions though: risk and danger in pursuit of power


The Stirnenian is that if they colonized for egoistical reasons they were acting healthy. If they did it because they were spooked by nationalism or something they are just tools of the real egoists.

>>938308
Basicly
>The Poor who fought and died for the Rich in the name of "Nationalism" were spooked
>The Rich who benefited from it weren't

>>938395
>The Rich who benefited from it weren't
Suppose a penniless red shirt who went to war just so he could kill and rape people without reprisals; would he necessarily be spooked?

>>938317
>>938395
Even so it might be a better way of obtaining wealth than whatever opportunities are available to a civilian commoner.

>>938385
What separates the übermensch from a regular egoist? Once they get their gold they decide to gain more and more power instead of live the rest of their lives in opulent splendor?