Q: I worked on Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, he believes language has a disciplinary effect that through the words goes straight to ideology. So for Stirner, you have to free yourself from this kind of language and have a personal rebellion, not a revolution. This is something different from your language conception that is free and creative. I want to know what you think about that.

NC: I think Stirner is confusing language with the use of language. I mean it is like asking whether you have to free yourself from a hammer because a hammer can be used by a torturer. It is true that a hammer can be used by a torturer but the hammer can be used also to build houses. The use of a hammer is something we must pay attention to, but the language can be used to repress, can be used to liberate, can be used to divert. It is like saying you have to liberate yourself from hands because they can be used to repress people but it's not hands' fault.

MV: Critique of Kantian "Sitte": merely subjective attunement -> "gewoehnung" -> Sittlichkeit as such in friction with morality: emergence of moral subject -> categorical imperative = "Recht des subjektiven Willens" -> formalism -> morality is inserted into a situation of 'sollen' instead of 'wirklichkeit' (FN re: moral man: "das unhistorische Thier") -> CatImp deeply fascist.

stirner reading above weak in my opinion. stirner rejects particular discourse as described by MV above (sollen) and warns that this language will allow christian ethic to survive beyond the superficial rejection of monotheistic fashion. his polemic in the ego and its own is a satirical rejection of a certain type of ideologically tainted language. his method involves the creative usage of language to achieve personal rebellion- w reich's reading: death to super-ego.. turn in tide cannot come from small stalinesque crew- power issue will only be resolved if self-realisation as revolutionary subject spreads