>That she did what she wished, and that Stirner let her do what she wished-that of course may have let her appear in the eyes of the marriage-slaves as detestable as it later did to her, but it can only make the two of them more likable to us. Every act of making up the mind for the other, for that matter, would not have fit at all into the nature of those involved, for whom "marriage" meant only a loose band that was thrown around them purely externally. And not on the "unfaithfulness" of the wife-how ridiculous!-did "this marriage perish," but simply and only under the pressure of the circumstances in which he and she unfortunately all too soon found themselves. --John Henry MacKay, 'Max Stirner: His Life and His Work'
Reminder that Stirner was a literal cuck who invented the notion of a spook to deal with his impotence. "H-Ha ha, cuckoldry is just a spook..."
if you wanna be reminded of cuckoldry just read my diary desu
Charles Diaz
Looking at the average Stirner poster this is no surprise
Andrew Kelly
> it can only make the two of them more likable to us Jesus Christ what a dark view into the mind of a person utterly twisted by ideology. The leftist monomania for “freedom” (as if it were truly a thing) and likewise “oppression” is such a wretched pathology.
I actually like Stirner and don’t care if he let his lady sleep around or whatever but Jesus Christ I’m not going to celebrate a nibba for being so “liberated” he lets other dudes blast off into his woman. This quote is like a goddamn /pol/-created parody of white leftists.
Jaxon Smith
>freedom isn't a "thing" >I don't care if he let his lady sleep around
Ooh look at me I'm so above it all Fucking shit eating faggot
Brandon Long
Woah buddy are you alright? Am I supposed to feel some kind of way about some lob dead dude letting other dudes carve out his wife? I mean what the fuck? As well, to call me “above it all” when you made exactly no statement of position, but only made a glib dog at my comment for indifference to a man’s adultery and my disbelief in the utility of the concept of freedom. Is everything going alright with you, bud?
Noah Jenkins
Not the poster you are responding to but you seem like a moron.
The person quoted in OP celebrating Stirner's liberation for his open-marriage is in alignment with Stirner's own worldview. It is inconsistent to express indifference for Stirner's open-marriage, to even say you like Stirner, then get cross at the person quoted. You may have a point about the pathology of freedom, but Stirner is the very embodiment of that pathology, you retard, not le white guilt /pol/ soyboy numale cucks, which is something totally unrelated you conjured and attacked for no reason other than your own insanity.
Noah Nelson
Holyshit, was this actually pasted from reddit
William Lopez
I can very easily a) like TEAIO b) not care about a dead stranger’s personal life and c) find the celebration of his weird marriage arrangement to be grotesque and an expression of an ideological pathology. I’m not seeing the problem here.
It is obvious that the man quoted liked Stirner. I can like Marx and find any one of his supporters distasteful, yeah? Think, boy.
Zachary Wood
You're such an insufferable cunt, I hope for your sake you're a woman
Easton Diaz
>caring about a cunt and her lust
Matthew Gutierrez
>raising someone else's kids
Matthew Nelson
>a nibba
Ian Perry
You dislike the man quoted because he expresses enthusiasm for the freedom inherent in devaluing concepts like marriage and faithfulness. That is the very embodiment of Max Stirner's ideas, which is why Max Stirner did it. His personal life was enthused with his philosophy, you fucking spastic. It isn't just an aside. The problem is the contradiction in liking Stirner's philosophy but not liking Stirner's philosophy put in practice, which is what Stirner's open-marriage amounts to. Your failure to grasp that even after I've made it clear in my previous post further demonstrates you are retarded.
This post >10344531, by the way, is absolutely cancerous. Someone calls you a moron for your moronic comment so it's, "lol, bro? You got problems, bro? You not happy in life, lol? Not my fault, lol. Y u so mad? I'm just chillaxin' calm on the interbutts and U r so mad, bro? Lol." It reads like it was typed by a 17 year old special ed nigga aids infected cancerous little shit. Lurk more and stop posting your uninformed, obnoxious comments, you adolescent dumb ass.
Andrew Brooks
Doing Gods work my man
Wyatt Jones
"Taken as a whole, [Max Stirner] is awful, loutish, pretentious, self-important, a Pennalist, a degenerate student, a lump, an egomaniac, clearly a serious psychopath. He crows in a loud, unpleasant voice: I am Me, I care about nothing but Myself. His verbal sophisms are unbearable. The hep cat of his cigar-smoking, basement-bar bohemian lifestyle is disgusting. " - Carl Schmitt
Daniel Bell
Well, are you happy in life?
Christopher Lee
Was every fucking author a cuck? I remember even that Schopenhauer wrote that women are responsible for´keeping the species healthy by only mating with top tier mates and that this was good and who ever opposed this was selfish.
Jayden Parker
reminder that stirner is still correct
Xavier King
Schopenhauer's mother was a big slut and would act promiscously in front of Schopenhauer. Not even kidding. His life was like one of their weird incest femdom videos.
Joshua Scott
gj destroying the retarded faggot
Isaiah Bailey
>if you like Stirner you cannot also be put off by enthusiasm for polyamory Good to know! Here I thought the whole thing was about ensuring the ideas and factions I serve serve /me/ well when actually it is about unconditionally endorsing other’s hedonism! Very nice.
You are as stupid as you are angry, I’m afraid.
Jacob Green
How does caring about what another person does concern you? Sounds spooky to me
Elijah Butler
It doesn’t and I have said as much. I just expressed revulsion at the man quoted in the op’s enthusiasm for Stirner a cuckholdry while simultaneously liking TEAIO.
Isaac Evans
Not what the exchange was about, retard, and that is one of the most blatant attempts to re-shape the topic of an exchange to dodge accountability for your idiocy. You are fucking cheap.
What John Henry MacKay is praising is Max Stirner has, in his view and Stirner's, escaped the spooks of marriage and faithfulness, and opted into a different kind of arrangement, one which devalues high ideals, except one which was dear to Stirner and MacKay personally, non-interference. You expressed dislike for MacKay because you thought a man who died in 1933 was a white guilt left wing cuck while saying you liked Stirner's philosophy. You've acted like a faggot and refused to see the contradiction.
If you were anything but a braindead fucking spastic your original post should've stated you like certain aspects of Stirner's philosophy, the denial of a higher platonic reality in which abstracts reign, but dislike certain applications of it, such as the behaviour described in OP, for whatever fucking reason.
You obviously know very little of Stirner and don't have a particularly strong grasp on his philosophy, but came in this thread to tell everyone you like Stirner but John Henry MacKay is a soyboy cuck. Next time take your insipidity, ego defense mechanism inconsistency and emptyheaded bloviating and cram it up your fucking cramhole, you stupid piece of shit.
>LOLOLOLOLOL Y R U SO MAD THO BRO??? xDDD I'M JUST SO CALM AND IDC LOLOLOLOL
Liam King
I don't see any contradiction here. You should be a cuckold if you like Stirners philosophy. His enthusiasm is in seeing Stirner is a strong independent man who don't need no commited relationship
Xavier Roberts
> a white guilt left wing cuck w No I said he was poisoned by ideology.
> your original post should've stated y I did say those things but you seem to have misinterpreted “liking Stirner “ with maintaining absolute fidelity to a very shallow reading of his work.
Not only do you try to /pol/tar me, you betray a very unnuanced understanding of Stirner. The thing is I think your primary gripe with me is that I made a connection between McKay’s statement and te pathology of leftism\liberalism (a point Stirner himself might even make in the first part of th book, really). I am sorry you are so upset.
And the bottom line is this: a man might willingly shit himself and call himself liberated for doing so and some people might cheer him for it but I’m not beholden to not be grossed out by it because I like a book.
Angel Smith
YOU CHEAP ADOLESCENT LITTLE FUCKHEAD
>I am sorry you are so upset. Literally kill yourself you cancerous hipster shit. If you're going to try to act smug, you should at least have something to be smug about, not just a braindead shithead hipster faggot detachment, a trait held dear as an arrogance grounded in insecurity among dreary teenagers who excuse their idiocy by pretending they weren't really trying and they don't care. It's sickening.
Now more of your fucking general stupidity, as you lie and dodge like a cheap bitch. >No I said he was poisoned by ideology. Let's look at what you said >The leftist monomania for “freedom” What leftists do you mean? John Henry MacKay was a libertarian, and it's made clear what leftists you have in mind with, >This quote is like a goddamn /pol/-created parody of white leftists. So why now lie and try to pretend I'm /pol/-tarring you when it's obvious what you have in mind when anyone goes back and reads what you typed? The pathology for freedom is with Stirner and MacKay, but you brought up a leftist monomania for freedom totally irrelevantly, and now try to purport you were just referring to ideology in general? Do you even fucking realise what a cheap little bitch you are?
Just apologize for being such a stupid shit, promise to lurk more and post less of your fatuous comments.
Ayden Green
>if your wife is unfaithful everything you have said or believed in is now invalid
damn
Christopher Miller
>all the spooked retards in this thread
Landon Walker
If its a direct product of your philosophy obviously yeah
Ayden Powell
it really isn't a direct product of his philosophy though, you can be against your wife getting dicked without being spooked if your basis is emotion
Chase Cook
Absolutely ridiculous, there is no ontological distinction between emotion and reason
Nicholas Morris
Didn't he also sleep around though? That's not being a cuck, that's just having an open relationship.
Justin Peterson
/thread
Nicholas Jones
good book for those who still think that stirner is anything but shit:
>someone doesn't abide by your values >dismiss his rejection of your values by the fact that under the criteria of those values he'd be evaluated extremely negatively I think cuckoldry is pathetic but unless there's some kind of common ground axiom between you and Stirner here from which you can destroy him (or that you think he should have reason to abide by even if he rejects it, or that there's some crucial flaw in his rejection) his behaviour is beyond rational reproach. What more is there to be said?
Jordan Long
Open relationships are the same thing in the eyes of a poltard
Lucas Robinson
>saint max oh marx
Carter Morales
Stirner fucked young women user, idk if you didn’t make the connection between being a girl’s school teacher, his attitude towards people as property and the ridiculous number of jailbait chasing fags who spookpost
Kayden Flores
While I completely agree with you, one thing that bothers me a lot is the notion that libertarianism isn't something kinda strictly tied to the left. McKay was a anarchist, which, at the time (ie before the red scare) was considered a libertarian position (it still is in the rest of the world, only not in the US)
Luis Howard
The fact that anyone here who claims to have read Stirner's work would be surprised by him having a open marriage tells a whole fucking lot about Veeky Forums's current population. As bad as you want to call Feminister, D&E, butters or other similar ancient tripfags, they at least knew their stuff. I mean, even Bullkowski at least knew which Bukowski* poems she hated and provided long ramblings as to why she disliked those.
*: Bullkosky, Fuckoski, whatever her name was, you know who I'm talking about, and I seriously don't remember the actual word.
Ethan Perry
...
Andrew Nguyen
>tfw ancient
Adam Martin
I don't know which are you but I like all of those tripfags so don't feel insulted, it's just that it's been more than a year since I saw Butters and (s)he was the last hero standing.
Liam Perez
None. I've just been on /lit since I was a kid and I feel like I know all those people. >liking D&E
Justin Foster
Whose?
Josiah Kelly
/thread
Matthew Bailey
Philosophy and an instance of it put into practice are not the same. Stirner's philosophy is adaptable, you don't have to agree with his opinions or actions, to do so if you disagree is to compromise said philosophy.
Carson Bell
>I remember even that Schopenhauer wrote that women are responsible for´keeping the species healthy by only mating with top tier mates and that this was good and who ever opposed this was selfish. I mean, this actually has biological and sociological basis. This isn't cuckoldry either.
Luke Powell
He invented the notion of the spook to eternally BTFO the hypocrisy in the Young Hegelians esp. feuerbach.
As far as his philosophy goes being a cuck is tied to your relationship to ideology and ideas generally (ie whether you make it your property or not).
So funnily enough an idea such as honour can be the property of one person whilst it is a spook for another. - Its one of the reasons why he flusters people so brilliantly
