I don't understand this memeball. This is the anarchist-Pacifist flag right? How are they Spooks...

I don't understand this memeball. This is the anarchist-Pacifist flag right? How are they Spooks? The Government seems to have always hated those against War, from the Loyalists to Lindbergh to Ron Paul?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_German_Ideology
lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

It's probably meant to be Egotist-Anarchism (Max Stirner) but the creator was an idiot and chose the wrong flag.

...

...

...

What is a spook in Stirner's philosophy? I'm guessing someone its without individualism.

Pacifists are always subversives, without exception, because nature empirically proves that pacifism leads to death.

It's a very good lesson that the Soviets created many if not most of the peace and disarmament organizations in the west.

Basically an abstract, or social construct. Ideals, concepts, identities, and so on. He called them spooks because they haunt your brain like ghosts and basically cuck you into acting against your own self-interest.

But Neoconservative Wars are part of why America's economy are in the toilet.

And we could have easily just had a cold war with the Nazis in WWII as with Russia. I don't see how getting involved in WWII was anything but a complete waste of money and time.

Stirner reminds me of De Sade.

why was Max so perfect

i didn't know he had triggered Marx so badly

>getting involved in WWII
The Nazis were far stronger and more competent than the Soviets at the time. There was a real chance of outright losing, rather than a cold war.

Although, it is somewhat odd that the USA did not subjugate the depleted Soviets AFTER WWII. No one else had nukes.

...

Is there any real difference? They both argue for the abolishment of all the same things. This spook concept sounds a lot like Cultural Marxism.

...

Yeah, but losing to who? the Nazis never directly attack us, and we could have avoided war with them. We also should have given Japan Hawaii anyway, my gf is from there and say's there are almost no white people left anyway and its pretty much ruled by Japanese tourism/colonialism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_German_Ideology
>Later, Marx and Engels wrote a major criticism of Stirner's work. The number of pages Marx and Engels devote to attacking Stirner in (the unexpurgated text of) The German Ideology, in which they derided him as "Sankt Max" (Saint Max), exceeds the total of Stirner's written works.[38] As Isaiah Berlin has described it, Stirner "is pursued through five hundred pages of heavy-handed mockery and insult".[39]
lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html is a relevant read
>Similar apocalyptic fears might have driven Jürgen Habermas in his younger years to condemn the "absurdity of Stirner's fury" with furious words -- and since that time never to mention Stirner again, even in texts about Left Hegelianism. Theodor Adorno, who saw himself driven back at the end of his philosophical career to the -- pre-Stirnerian -- "standpoint of Left Hegelianism," once cryptically remarked that Stirner was the only one who really "let the cat out of the bag," but in no way referred to him in any of his works. For his part, Peter Sloterdijk took note of none of this, only shaking his head at the idea that the "brilliant" Marx had "grown angry in many hundreds of pages about those, after all, simple thoughts of Stirner."

>Karl Marx: like Nietzsche's, his reaction to Stirner deserves to be emphasized here, owing to its era-forming impact. Marx believed as late as the summer of 1844 that Feuerbach was "the only one who had achieved a true theoretical revolution." The appearance of »Der Einzige« in October, 1844, shook this outlook to the core, because Marx very clearly experienced the depth and implications of Stirner's criticism. While others, including Engels, initially admired Stirner, Marx saw from the beginning in him an enemy who needed to be annihilated.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

A combination of infiltration by Soviets, lack of anything to gain, and general WASP integrity.

>The Nazis were far stronger
They really weren't though. Their tanks sucked, they didn't have the human numbers, the Blitzkrieg failed and they ended up stuck in winter Russia with faulty supply lines and without proper equipment.

They rolled over Europe which didn't want a war and then picked a fight with the wrong enemy.

If you're religious, any form of material individualism will look like "Marxism" to you.

But factually, there are non-Marx materialists everywhere. Marxism itself is a salvationist religion.

BUT THEY KILLED A LOT OF RUSKIES SO THEY WON

Do you actually believe the Soviets and Allies would have won without US assistance?

If no, consider then that the USA would have been facing a Nazi entire world.
And if the Soviets actually did win, it would be a Soviet entire world.
That's part of why the USA got involved.

>before computers and the internet autistics would communicate in the same ways people on internet forums communicate now, dedicating over 9000 pages to letter drama and book drama rather than forum drama

>Hans Heinz Holz, warned that that "Stimer's egoism, were it to become actualized, would lead to the self destruction of the human race

now this has me interested.

>Marxism itself is a salvationist religion.

Agreed.

>But factually, there are non-Marx materialists everywhere.

Right, but I'm more asking, how is Stirner simply not just nihilism? If the only objective value is to do what you're biologically programmed to do, why bother about philosophizing and simply do what ever your nerve endings ask of you?

FUCKING SPOOKS REEEEEEEEEEEE

Soviets would win without American support, the war would be just longer and even more people would die.

Why not just be an efilist?

It wouldn't because it's empirically how natural selection generated humanity in the first place.

Which is as well how capitalism works: competition between self-interested parties.

Remember, most historical philosophers had no idea about the scientific foundations of biology. So they had all sorts of religio-magical beliefs about humanity.

Because understanding how the universe works is the only possible way to fulfill the survival drive of biology.

See: How learning evolves in fruit flies, and tool use in primates.

What makes you so sure the Soviets would have defeated highhandedly with the UK?

>BUT THEY KILLED A LOT OF RUSKIES
So did Finns in the Winter War, and they still lost the disputed territory.

>Do you actually believe the Soviets and Allies would have won without US assistance?
Do you actually believe they wouldn't? Japan was afraid to mess with USSR (rightfully so, as Machurian operation shown). The Blitzkrieg failed - Hitler didn't capture Moscow, the production facilities were moved behind Ural mountains. Stalingrad was the moment where the tides have turned completely. That was all before US sent their troops. Lend-lease was very useful and saved a lot of Soviet lives, but it was a reasonable investment in the end and probably wasn't crucial to the victory. It's simple - USSR had more resources, human and otherwise, and a leader that was just as willing to spend all of them to achieve victory as Hitler was, if not more.

>That's part of why the USA got involved.
I'm not saying that US involvement was unreasonable, though.

>Because understanding how the universe works is the only possible way to fulfill the survival drive of biology.

Right, but that's still a long way for philosophically proving that obeying biology is a good thing.

Soviets honestly had no chance without the hordes of US Shermans pressuring Germany in a two-front war.

Germans also had prototype jet plane research and many more nuclear physicists, with heavy water refineries already set up.

It's essentially a one-front war without the US, and Germans had far superior technology and economy.

>American attempt at baiting

Right, and arguably Nazism is better than Sovietism. So weren't the pacifists like Lindbergh right in WWII?

>Right, but that's still a long way for philosophically proving that obeying biology is a good thing.
There's no such thing as "philosophically proving".

It's scientifically proven that you cannot do anything BUT obey biology. Everything you do is biological in origin, and subject to evolution.

The ideas of "spirituality" are illusions and tools of social control by elites who write the narrative: That's the "anti-ghost".

The realization that other philosophers are lying about ideology purely for their own emotional self interest, as a tool to fulfill it, even unwittingly.

Out of curiosity, what is the appropriate term for someone who knows that humans are doomed to just follow our instinctive desires even though they are meaningless and fulfilling them is without value, yet makes no claim as to the appropriate response to this fact?

>Germans also had prototype jet plane research
Yes, Germany were spending unreasonable amounts of money on "wunderwaffe" projects because they knew only a miracle could save them at that point. This makes for some great video games and movies, but it doesn't mean shit when the enemy if banging at your front door and you don't have production capabilities or people to defend yourself.

...

hypothetically speaking if Japan had never attacked pearl harbor and U.S stayed isolationist for a few years beyond dec.1941, ww2 would have turned out differently

Japan not attacking pearl harbor would have meant USSR couldn't move it's siberia troops to fight Germans on the eastern front

western front would have stayed a stalemate

the African campaign and Italy campaign might of failed if it was just UK and allies.

Japan pretty muched fuck the third reich.

Even though this is Sup Forums, American freedoms are in fact better than the deluded Nazi leadership and their medieval mysticism.

A Nazi world victory would be as self-implosive as all the other incompetent autocrats in history.

>could save them at that point
After the USA entered the war? Sure.

>implying Le Pen will win

So where does Stirner fall in the political spectrum?

>It's scientifically proven that you cannot do anything BUT obey biology. Everything you do is biological in origin, and subject to evolution?

What about the pre-frontal cortex, meditation, Lucid Dreaming, Chastity, Suicide, Veganism, Abortion, Robotics? I imagine this conversation just spirals into semantics about what is biological, but surely you can't believe that our intelligence is completely enslaved to our passions? (even if those are bad examples)

>The ideas of ''spirituality'' are illusions and tools of social control by elites who write the narrative.

Is that why Christianity is the only real force sticking up to Communism? What about the utter hatred and contempt the elites have for Christianity? How is essentially annihilating a religion using it as a tool?

the word spiritual is nebulous, another thing that would probably devolve into semantic argument. But are practices like meditation simply ''not real'' even though they have biologically measurable benefits?

>The realization that other philosophers are lying about ideology purely for their own emotional self interest.

What about all the pessimist philosophers like Mainlander, and Caraco who kills themselves because of their realizations? Are they somehow acting in self-interest?

Why do you people keeping believing that germans had any chance against Russians?

>loose a war

A FUCKING LEAF

...

>Appropriate response

presupposes there is any hope in changing reality.

...

...

>Japan not attacking pearl harbor would have meant USSR couldn't move it's siberia troops to fight Germans on the eastern front
Japan was afraid of messing with USSR because while their naval power was strong, their land-based forces fucking sucked. Google their "tanks" of WW2 - they really are a joke.

>A Nazi world victory
Would be impossible either way.

>After the USA entered the war?
After the Stalingrad, really. That was the beginning of the end. The fate of Germany was decided there.

You're assuming America would have been conquered by the Nazis?

We were never conquered by the Soviets, why not let the Nazi beast engulf Eurasia instead and simply make money/trade with them instead?

...

...

...

they did have a chance. fighting on two fronts isn't disadvantageous as fuck.

Germans holding on Ukraine and capturing the oil fields would mean soviets would starve to death and no more oil for their war machine. it's that simple.

...

...

>literally to smart to loose a war

...

...

>What about the pre-frontal cortex
The brain is biological. All processing exists to serve the survival interest of the organism, or it would be selected against. That's empirically proven in biology.

>Is that why Christianity is the only real force sticking up to Communism?
It isn't. Christianity and Communism are the same thing in different clothes. There are plenty of Christian Leftists.

It's just a false choice, wherein two arms of the same creature appear to fight each other.

>who kills themselves because of their realizations
In Stirner's Egoism, suicide is only an act of unrealization and stupidity.

No one commits suicide for what they have realized, but for what they have failed to realize.

It the same way a computer can have a bug and make an error, so too can humans. Again, this is observed by natural selection.

Religions and Marxists are so heavily opposed to Darwinists and Egoists for the same reason the Church was opposed to the Earth orbiting the sun:

They want to maintain their own social power.

Their own self-importance.

Which is taken as confirmation of Stirner's Egoism.

...

...

...

Right, so you're admitting the Nazis weren't a threat and it wasn't our fight. Leave European conflicts to Europe.

...

...

...

It doesn't piss people off it disgusts them.

Your don't get angry at a Turkroach.

These were all OCs, enjoy

Fuck you bong

Stalingrad and Prokhorovka was long before D-Day.

What did it done - prevented more lives being lost and didn't let USSR take whole europe.

>That's empirically proven in biology.

You've still yet to prove that its objectively good to follow evolution. Proving that evolution exists isn't the same thing as proving its benevolent to individuals under the Will.

>Its a false choice

True, I'm just saying, you can' argue EVERY religious person is under the spell of the elites, therefore this theory only applies to SOME Christians/Any other ideology.

>Failed to realize

and what have they failed to realize?

>Again, this is observed by natural selection

How do you classify things as an error? You've still not proven that obeying a molecule (DNA) is somehow ''good'' in any tangible way.

>They want to maintain their own social power

What about anti-Egoists who have no power?

>Which is taken as confirmation of Stirner's Egoism.

Which is the sign (imho) of an unfalsifiable claim. However you can prove me wrong very easily, is there any circumstance (obviously you don't think its possible, but lets just say theoretically) that would disprove your theory? In the same way that space-travel disproves the flat earth, or conversely spaceships blowing up hitting the firmament prove it?

Right, so they only took half. I don't see how the USA benefits from it even in that case.

Whoa... No need to get this real here.

>Stirner's philosophy

It's called spam, not philosophy.
Philosophy doesn't need so much propagandizing on anonymous Internet forums

Okay that one was good.

>You've still yet to prove that its objectively good to follow evolution.
I don't have to. You can choose to die whenever you want. Your very idea of "good" comes from your biological desire to survive, so it's a cart before the horse issue.

>and what have they failed to realize?
Why they should live of course.

That's the irony of people misunderstanding Stirner: You can't be an egoist and nihilist at the same time.

>What about anti-Egoists who have no power?
The other point of Stirner is that there is no such thing as an "anti-Egoist" in reality:
Everyone is implicitly an egoist, acting for his or her own feelings and beliefs, there are just people more or less honest about their motivations.

>you can' argue EVERY religious person is under the spell of the elites
I can by definition. A religious person rejects reality in favor of the unprovable story told by other men.

>that would disprove your theory?
Can you falsify the existence of space-time?

If not, your challenge to egoism is invalid. Consider it.

Politics are a spook

Individualist Anarchist

stirner hated communism and all forms of collectivism

also while it is important to know the difference between spooks and non-spooks, something being a spook does not make it any less important. It's merely a description of the nature of such things, in the same way a chair can be grouped loosely with a toilet and my face as "things people sit on"

borders, nations, governments etc are indeed nothing but human creations, but they work because they are effective ways of organizing people and getting things done.

morals and ethics may be subjective, but they play an important role in keeping society stable (the most effect method of policing is self policing, this much is true)

It's ok, Turkroach, when the shit hits the fan, we'll all tune into your Periscope.
Also, why don't you to /qa/ and ask them to take down those flags? If you look at the anons in its favor, they all want Sup Forums to be weak

>Can you falsify the existence of space-time?
>If not, your challenge to egoism is invalid. Consider it.


I don't understand the jump. I'm not shitposting, but what exactly do you mean?

In terms of Egoism. What about Buddhism that has a whole system of actions that encourage the dissolution of yourself? How is that egotistical? Again, this is an unfalsifiable claim. That's not very good philosophy in my opinion, if there's literally nothing that could disprove your philosophy. Its like arguing with Freudians, either you admit they're right or your ''repressing'' that they're right, there's literally nothing they'll admit that disproves them.

and what about all the neuroscience that more or less ''proves'' that the ego does not exist. And that you are simply an instrument of various hyperobjects such as Darwinist Evolution?

>but they work because they are effective ways of organizing people
Indeed, that something is a created human tool, like a law, doesn't make it useless.

Ethics are a material benefit to individual survival, by reducing personal threats through societal cooperation.

The point of Stirner-like analysis is that people are essentially more or less deceptive about their true intent, wherein their true intent always traces to biological individualism, but they clothe it in grand fictions for a directed purpose.

>I don't understand the jump. I'm not shitposting, but what exactly do you mean?
Basically, the so-called 'theory' of Egoism is actually a description of observations.

The same as a timeline is an observation of positions along a temporal dimension.

What would you observe if time did not exist?
Well, you wouldn't exist, and you wouldn't be doing X, so eventually the idea of 'falsifiability' breaks down when confronted with contingent physical observables.

Without the will to survive, humans wouldn't exist. So the nonexistence of humanity would disprove the contention that human existence is based upon biological survival.

See?

>morals and ethics may be subjective, but they play an important role...this much is true

That's a good point, but if morality is subjective why isn't advocating Islam and Necrophilia just as good as advocating anything else if it fulfills your ego? How is this any different from Derrida style post-modernism?

Because some things are worse for individual survival.

It's actually very simple once you look at it.

"Should you advocate for others to kill you?"
Well there, for an Egoist, you can see in part what may be more right or wrong to do.

>Without the will to survive, humans wouldn't exist. So the nonexistence of humanity would disprove the contention that human existence is based on biological survival.

Right, but Doesn't egoism presuppose human existence is a good thing? It doesn't actually prove that human existence is worth preserving?

>Because some things are worse for individual survival.

What is considered better to Stirner? Genetic survival or hedonistic fulfillment? They aren't the same thing, homosexuals, cuckolds, etc prove that.

>That's a good point, but if morality is subjective why isn't advocating Islam and Necrophilia just as good as advocating anything else if it fulfills your ego

not all morals are created equal

some moral codes re objectively better for societies, just as some governmental systems are better than others

morals are subjective, but the effects of those morals are anything but

A FUCKING MONKEY
Go eat a banana you poo chucker

>Right, but Doesn't egoism presuppose human existence is a good thing?
No, that's the cart before the horse.

It states that your very concept of good solely comes from the survival of your ego.

You're asking for a reverse justification from an objective external morality, which doesn't exist.

You can conclude that survival is good because your survival evolved, and your idea of good within that survival evolved to ensure it.

I.E. You can have nothing you feel to be good without you yourself existing.

Which is in some ways why it is called "post-nihilism".

Acknowledging that individuals have separate and conflicting interests does not require you to consider them equally valuable.

>morals are subjective, but the effects of those morals are anything but

But if things have no value except in the individual (and I do not know whether that means genetically or hedonistically) if something benefits the individual why do the effects counter/besides to the individual matter?

>why do the effects counter/besides to the individual matter?
As Striner writes in "The Ego and Its Own": "I refer all to myself."

External social structures exist in part to ensure individual survival, for without the survival of each individual, there can be no total structure.

>What is considered better to Stirner?
As above, the survival of the ego is the contingent point from which all other things flow.

If you act to the detriment of your ego's survival, it results in poor future results.

And your genes are in fact part of what composes your ego.

Egoism is not 'hedonism', implicitly. Hedonism can sacrifice survival for pleasure, Egoism never will.

well if you really think about it, putting in the effort to have a good society benefits you individually as well as any future family you may have

>It states that your very concept of good solely comes from the survival of the ego.

So then is Stirner a non-rationalist? (If good is from egoism rather than rational calculation such as Kantianism?)

> You're asking for a reverse justification from an objective external morality, which doesn't exist.

I don't really understand this, to be honest. Just because something exists does not mean its justified. As an atheist, one believes that things ''simply'' exist, I would argue an objective external morality could be calculated from the same knowledge.

>You can conclude that survival is good...evolved to ensure it

1) Plenty ideas of good don't lead to survival
2) I am not here because of my own actions, but because of two people acted under their animals passions
3) Plenty of other evils (like pedophilia) help ensure genetic survival, that does not prove objectively that they are ''good'' simply for aiding survival.

>I.E. You can have nothing to feel to be good without you yourself existing

But a person can calculate before their own non-existence (death) and someone else's (birth) the relative ''goodness'' or ''badness'' of existence, I exist now, and do not have to come to the conclusion simply because I exist that existence is good. I can come to the conclusion that existence is very bad.

Post-Existential nihilism or post-Moral nihilism?

>And your genes are in fact part of what composes your ego.

So then why the hostility to collectivism if it is genetic (ie ethnic/racial) rather than hedonistic? Nothing could ensure my survival better than using the state to maximize those with my genes, and minimize those without my genes.