What did Ubisoft mean by this?

Reminder that Stirner was a loser.
Reminder that people who unironically believe in spooks are spineless weaklings who try to mask their actions behind the loser's philosophy.
Reminder that if you use spooks you're a loser who gets made fun of by everyone

>Reminder that Stirner was a loser.
ho does this relate to the truth value of his thesis?

If you listen to losers, you're probably one as well

that seems highly dubious

also irrelevant. losers and winners die all the same

Aye, but winners enjoyed their life far more.

See, now I know that you're a loser, because you think that death invalidates the joys of life.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Marxists believe that capitalist societies will eventually transition towards socialism via a proletariat revolution, right?

but it does

just because you disagree with truth does not make it untruth

Stirner didn't even care about truth, why would you appeal to it?

>Reminder that people who unironically believe in spooks are spineless weaklings
Yes, people who believe in spooks. Spooks being things like "good" and "evil", right?

Yes.

Social reformists, the Fabians and such, were those guys were the socialists that dropped the revolutionary, violent ideology.

It doesn't.

You're a loser because you're "sour graping" your way through life, envious of others leading better lives by thinking "well we'll both be dead".

You knkw you aren't a real nihilist do you?
Real nihilist has only one option: ending his life.
You are still alive, so you're just a half-baked weakling hiding behind memes.

Stirner isn't nihilist.

why would I want to be a real nihilist?

I'm fine just as I am

I might go masturbate in public later

we'll see

If that's the case, for socialist societies over the course of history, have the revolutions ever been started by the working class themselves or were they always led by a group of upper class intellectuals that would have sympathized with Marx's work?

>I can't take the world's emptiness, so I not only make up meaning to it, but I also try so hard to believe it's inherent!

He is certainly a kind of nihilist

>doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

Yeah, he was too much of a pussy for that.

More babel from the mouth of a fool who thinks himself wise.
Enjoy your life devoid of any meaning

Radical as fuck bro.
So why live?
Just die. It's better isn't it?
Life is suffering, at least in some part, while death is nothing. So why not just die?
What's the purpose of living?
That's right. It's either fear or pleasure.
So why not construct ideas that maximize pleasure for everyone, while being sustainable in long run?
This semi-nihilist shit that's spammed here is just the worst. It's the philosophical equivalent of a kid who listens to Slipknot while shitting on Justin Bieber.

Dunno. Fabians and the like didn't start socialist societies per se, they were still influential in democracies. Social democracy and Labour Parties are related. My own country is currently under the "Socialist" Party put it's anything but revolutionary. More of the same bullshit.

even if all you do is suffer, you still are

not to be is an absence of being

thereby to be in whatever form with whatever suffering is superior to not being by the sole virtue of a being being more than not being

so there's that

What? That's stupid. The Assassins are fine with violence. Why the fuck did Marx have to be a pacifist?

Promoting faggot-ass social democracy.

wasnt Marx pro-democracy when he was with the Young Hegalians initially? or am I getting people mixed up

How would tacking on Marx to your ideology make it more attractive to normal people?

Wouldn't that scare most people of social democracy?

And with social democracies openly opposing communist regimes, doesn't that just annoy people who actually know history and confuse everyone else?

>The Assassins are fine with violence. Why the fuck did Marx have to be a pacifist?
That's an excellent point. It's not like the psychopath you play as would get squicked.

Marx abandoned the absolute, and decided that people only believe in the absolute because they don't have happiness here in this life.

But that's total nonsense. It doesn't matter how great your life is, it doesn't matter if we cure all diseases, it doesn't even matter if you are biologically immortal. This world doesn't have what you're looking for.

There is no substitute for the absolute.

>and decided that people only believe in the absolute because they don't have happiness here in this life.
A damned silly non sequitur that is too.

And even if you wanted to depict Marx as opposing this kind of violence, you could do a much better job depicting him as opposed to trying to individualist actions trying to bypass a historical process.

Neither of those quotes are contradictory and the first certainly isn't pacifist. Only someone blind to the last 300 years would think democracy = peaceful. What this is getting at is those Luddites and sociopaths that thing simply killing rich people and wrecking factories will bring about a socialist society.

It's kinda like how Jesus saying turn the other cheek he doesn't imply full blown pacifism

Nope identifying something as a spook doesn't make any good/bad judgement

Pretty much.

>taking a thread of /pol/tards who haven't read a word of Marx's work circlejerking with each other about what Marx "REALLY" said seriously

>Trying to to separate Marx from a country he never lived in, wrote to, or existed at the same time with, as a thinker completely divorced from what horrors his ideas were used as a justification for, but also to make him a more rounded figure for liberals who'd come off

Fixed that for you

I've always thought it was (rich-guy)Engels who was more pro-violence than Marx was
Capitalism and Industrialization(both the pre-industrialization that is agricultural reforms that improve efficiency and create surplus ex-farm workers, and post-industrialization that is jobs being outsourced) change society (and culture) in many ways. Think of that TV series "Downton Abbey" and what occurs in it, or the subplot of a bankrupt noble family in the Titanic, or the French Revolution, or the American Civil War(In the South). Basically Capitalism has a way of turning traditional, often agricultural society in-on its head, destroying the old hierarchy of noblemen and such with new successive generations of upstarts, inventors, robber barons, etc.Violence is in part caused by a lack of "getting with the time" and making concessions that allow for a peaceful transition to the new order of things. (in other words don't be a hardliner, be a moderate, and things will shift as the great majority of society will gradually demand, in europe's case this has been social democracy to temper the excesses of capitalism, and share the wealth capitalism has created more evenly). Capitalism replaces traditional culture with a sort of consumerism/hedonism, it breaks down gender roles to have twice as many people to employ and sell too.. it dismisses some taboos because that's a new market to seek (gay couples).
Capitalism breaks down national borders in order to improve trade/economic efficiency (free trade agreements), etc.

Then I'm not sure what your point is.

I do think there are "losers" and "winners". But what I've noticed about winners is that they are driven by something that has nothing to do with their success.

It's sort of a paradox. If you are a loser you will look on winners with envy. You wish you had the self-control and confidence to achieve what they have. But in order to do that, you would have to become a different person who wasn't aiming at success.

This is why devout theists often seem annoyingly great at everything. It's because they're aiming at something outside this world, the stuff in this world just gets dragged along.

The fact that you haven't killed yourself yet proves otherwise. You obviously have something to loose. Its valid.

They're not taking the real Marx onto their ideology, they're watering down the real Marx because he created it, and they can't escape his shadow.

Its pretty hard to escape the fact that Marx was in favor of violent revolution. Kudos for trying, though.

It's always jarring to see western leftists suck Marx's cock

This must be what christian people who lived under the Ottomons felt when someone said Islam is great

It's because those people understand their goals are impossible to achieve through their own hands, so they're completely capable of being in honest relationship with what's outside their power, and instead of being resentful of the fact their ideal will never be material, a therefore lose momentum, can still go on by their desires without falling into excesses, and strive for the material to become ideal. Understanding the world is a fragile, everchanging thing and not a monster to conquer and so that other people aren't enemies but are just as scared and wanting as you, and as capable of joy and sensibility, change is then not a necessity, not something that ought to be good, and so gives all the reason for the subject to try to bring it about and make it a good thing; and at the same time, it is completely their choice to do so, as they might end their life whenever, and change happens any way, and goodness is not dependent on the subject. Throughly meditating on the parts that compose what you call "yourself", how they are just as everchanging and unnecessary, down to your thoughts, to your history, to your flesh, you see all of this isn't something you own or can own by some sort of cosmic law beside the simple fact that you are this, and so nothing, not your joy and not your sorrow, is cause for you to be an authority over your peers, and all has come about on its own.

The end of strife is the beginning of action; and if there is any action, that movement is not caused by resistance.

that should be "lenin's cock"

you're confusing marx for lenin and stalin lol.

Why do Veeky Forums and /pol/ blame Karl Marx for regimes that didn't appear for decades after his death, while simultaneously claiming that actual dictators like Hitler are innocent?

Dumbass

>it's a "newfag leftist assumes Veeky Forums thinks like /pol/ because he always has to be the victimized minority" episode

>lol let me call morality a spook before I go on with my day to day life in which I adhere to a personal sense of morality like almost all humans who've ever lived
I'm not saying morality isn't a spook but who fucking cares? You still fucking value it like everyone else, I don't believe for one second that you're a genuine sociopath.
And if it took you this long to figure out that morality is a subjective, abstract concept that isn't "real", to the point where you have to constantly remind people of it when it's not relevant because you think it's such a revelation, I just feel sorry for you honestly.

I'm so fucking sick of obnoxious spookposters who didn't give a fuck about the philosophical concept of a spook until it became an epic meme having to constantly remind people of how smart they think they are
>inb4 merely pretending :^)

>I've always thought it was (rich-guy)Engels who was more pro-violence than Marx was

No, not necessarily
>"If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat
Friedrich Engels.

Also while we're including trigger inducing quotes
>Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen.

>Workers’ democracy is the only road to socialism, here in the United States and everywhere else, all the way from Moscow to Los Angeles, and from here to Budapest.

This is also a quote from the "real" Karl Marx.

As for the quote on the right, it was not written as a threat, but in response to the Neue Rheinische Zeitung being supressed by the Prussian government.

>Did we therefore have to advance our social republican tendency only in the "last pieces" of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung? Did you not read our articles about the June revolution, and was not the essence of the June revolution the essence of our paper?

>Why then your hypocritical phrases, your attempt to find an impossible pretext?

>We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.

>The Prussian official piece of paper goes even to the absurd length of speaking about the "right of hospitality which was disgracefully abused" by Karl Marx, the Editor-in-Chief of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung.

This is what you've all been so triggered by. The last editorial published by a newspaper shut down for the crime of criticizing the state.

This website has become too Yiddish

It seriously hurts my eyes to come here. It's like having someone fart in your face while you're reading a board

Remember /int/ a few years ago? No one was a leftist, everyone knew about Jews and Communism

>it was not written as a threat
Bullshit, it isn't written as a threat, you Marxist fuckboy. I don't care if it's directed at the Prussian state or not. It's a very open threat.

>This is why devout theists often seem annoyingly great at everything.
I have the impression that 99% of William Lane Craig's effectiveness is that he is very fit for his age, he is unendingly polite (or faux-polite), and he has a twinkle in his eye.

Of course that has nothing to do with whether he is right, but it certainly gives you a clue about how you might become a person who isn't trivial. That's what people really care about.

>why do people blame Mohammed for Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, the Caliphate, the Ottomons, the Barbary pirates, the Boston bombings, the Chechen war, the Belsan hostage crisis, etc

It's funny because you're probably the kind of person that gets triggered by people blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition

I'm not a Christian number one

Number two the "horrors" of the Spanish Inquisition was part of the black legend created by northern Protestants in a propaganda campaign against the catholics

And you have no argument but ad hominem

>And you have no argument but ad hominem
Please don't invoke logical fallacies if you don't understand them or lack basic reading comprehension. Nothing in that post was an ad hominem.

>it's funny because you're probably the type of person who gets triggered by

Maybe it's that people of certain qualities tend towards certain mindsets, instead of the opposite.

If you're fuckin great at everything, what could possibly challenge your beliefs?

Daaaw, what's wrong?

No snappy retort?

It's a guess by your childish /pol/ attitude. Such people seem to be VERY emotional and defensive about Christianity and "western civilization" such that they get very butthurt if you say such things.

The argument isn't about you or your character. The reasoning in your post is bad whether or not you really are that type of person. It was merely an attempt to highlight your bad logic using a more sympathetic lens.

You "blame" people for the actions they commit. Not others you want to smear by association with criminals. ISIS is to blame for ISIS, not Mohammed. Islam might very well suck ass and Mohammed may have been complete shit, but that can only be proven through rigerous logical attack on Mohammed himself, not by pointing fingers at others and CLAIMING there is an association.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

>it's a guess by your childish /pol/ attitude
Well we're off to a totally unbiased start, aren't we darling?

Please, elaborate on this "/pol/ attitude" you seem to see

Shocker, most people on this website are western. It's almost like Indians would be defensive of south asian civilization, or Chinese being defensive of eastern civilization

My logic was flawless, you refused to refute my point about Muslims and instead rambled about christians and my alleged affiliation

HOL UP

*tells converts to kill non believers*

YOU SAYIN?

*tells converts that women are spoils of war*

YOU TRYNA TELL ME?

*stones faggot*

YOURE SAYING THAT I

*tells men it's okay to hit their wives*

AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A HORRIFYING RELIGIOUS CULT AND THE DOCTRINES OBEYED BY THE BELIEVERS?

*turns into camel*

>Mohammed says killing infidels and marrying children is good
>A large group of Muslims kill infidels and rape children

Mohammed dindu nuffin! He was a gud goi!

Hitler never visited a concentration camp but does that mean he had no role and shouldn't be associated in the Holocaust?

It depends on how aware and involved with the Holocause he was. It is theoretically possible, though highly unlikely, that he was some Ulysses S. Grant character that let his underlings get away from him and would have stopped the Holocaust had he known about it.

I don't value morality or appeal to it. I value certain kinds of conduct as they are conducive to my will or I carry our actions as Haunted individuals have power over me but I honour no morality