Steve Ditko is one of the greatest, and most important comic artists in history. His style was revolutionary at the time, and he created iconic characters like Spider-Man and Dr. Strange. However, he fucking hated Stan Lee and didn't stay at Marvel for too many years. Ditko was an outspoken Objectivist and is essentially /pol/ incarnate. I now give you his magnum opus, published in 1973, in all its fury and rage.
Bumps appreciated until its finished. 34 pages.
bump for objectivism ur doin gods work laddie
Still interested, still bumping. Thx op.
willikers, op, thank you.
Bump for good shit.
>>78894841
Thanks for the bumps, board is moving fast with all the shill posts in the wake of Brexit.
>>78894912
Totally, after the "alt-right explainer" articles started coming out, a bombshill went off up in /pol/
time to sit down for a good read. Thanks, OP, if you see these printed up and left around coffeeshops, bars, gas stations, barbershops, &c... it was me.
>>78895332
Closing Credits. The End. Hope you enjoyed it.
>>78895102
Yeah, everything, globally, is going into overdrive now to complete the long running NWO scheme. They simply do not care, the "progressives" are having Sit-Ins at Congress to strip people of their 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendment Rights based on Secret Government Lists... literal Police State Despotism. Crazy time to be alive.
>>78894181
This is good shit. I'm in love.
>objectivist
Objectivist fail because they can't put a objective term to "self interest" or what is "good".
They rely on established narratives grown out of their culture, which they subsequently turn on.
In the end an Objectivist is just a person rationalizing their opinions on certain things, and using those rationalized opinions as a anchor point in the wall of their own ego which they climb.
>>78896178
>a leaf
>shitting on over 2,000 years of western philosophy and rational thought
Why am I not surprised?
>>78896178
1 post by this ID.
Here is your panel >>78894121
>>78896178
>>78896483
Guys, guys, let's not fight already. Leafbro, there's no way you already sat down and finished this entire thing. Just please give it a read. If it's not palatable to your sensibilities, fine, but judge it on the merits of the argument and not whatever you've been told it says.
Ameribro, don't know where you came up with the 2000 years number but Randian Objectivism hasn't been around nearly that long. At the furthest stretch you could maybe date classical liberalism to the time of the Hugenots and the publication of "A Defense Of Liberty Against Tyrants." More likely you'd only go back as far as Cato's Letters to find any cohesive expression of the ideas. 2000 year, though... wew lad. I'd be happy to see a reference.
Bumping for great justice, hoping someone else sees themselves in the list of "problem people," finishes the comic, and judges for themselves.
>>78896483
>>78896767
>>78896956
Case in point.
>>78895332
>we are parents, elders, experts, authority, in charge, divine. Don't think, question, judge! DON'T UPSET OUR FEELINGS! JUST OBEY US.... OTHERS!
Sure, all this SOUNDS great in our day and age, but pay attention to when this was written.
>1973
4 years after the 60s.... During/After the sexual revolution... Back at the time when Westetn civilization literally went to compete shit.
This man isn't /pol/. This man is a fucking hippy, stick to the man faggot, who probably had an axe to grind against his Dad and Mum. His generation sold out Westetn civilization for some cheap ego stroking.
>Listen to your church and get married before sex
>Be a nationalist for your country
>Don't do drugs or embrace hedonism
These were the precepts he was "rebelling" against. You, and probably others, are projecting today's struggles onto this comic, when really it's just the same "Vive va la France" bullshit that's been the cancer of western civilization for 200 years...
He's a Marxist. And ironically by calling people to embrace their own inner "reason" is really just condemning the world to the whims of compete retards, as is historically shown.
>>78897391
agreed.
let alone the panels where he tries to argue that 'the actions of two consenting adults' are moral if they don't interfere with the collective... that's a stone's throw away from 'why do you bigots care if two gays bugger each other behind closed doors'
the answers to these questions are too hard to condense into comic book form, but suffice to say that this individualist philosophy won over a generation in the 60s, and turned into the modern liberalism of today.
Ditko's descendents are making sure:
the collective will of racial groups cannot be heard
the nationstate cannot exist
that society permits all actions
faith, spirituality, and religion is given no quarter
this is not /pol/ at all, because we live in an inverted version of Ditko's times. I enjoyed some of the comic though, thank you for posting this
>>78897391
What you quoted there ("we are parents, elders, &c.") is what he is holding up as a flawed model, but inescapable and either undetectable or just undetected by the intellectually lazy.
Speaking of intellectually lazy, did you read the entire page or did you just grasp at whatever you thought it said and you disagreed with, then hit "Post?" I'm not astounded, by any means, that you failed to internalize the sticky; this is /pol/, and it is summer, after all. But seriously, come with something better than your weak Canadian sauce if you're going to shitpost.
Let me just point out a few mistakes you're making:
>Assuming "the 60s" was some monolithic period independent of the time surrounding it.
>Assuming that the "sexual revolution" had a definable beginning and end
>Assuming Western civilization somehow ended and was rebuilt in time for you to be born into an era of unprecedented wealth and prosperity (yes, even in the heartless tundra that you inhabit)
>Misusing the word literally
>Assuming that any one viewpoint or person, yourself included, "is /pol/" or can be.
>Misquoting the text
>"His generation sold out Westetn [sic, for the second time FFS] civilization for some cheap ego stroking." Whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.
>Conflating the ideals of the French Revolution with Marxism.
>Claiming anything is "as is historically shown" without referencing any such history.
Again, I'll be glad to go toe-to-toe with you here. I do have a job that I have to get up for, but I haven't gotten to wreck a teenager for a while so I'll stay up.
>>78898535
I'm not going to defend Objectivism, per se, because I do disagree with most of what Objectivism has to say about faith and historical values and what not. But the larger point he's trying to make is that coercion is the problem, whereas mutual consent (in business or, yes, the bedroom) is what ultimately leads to happiness.
Whether or not that is the case, it is certainly a far cry from modern liberalism. I have a hard time thinking of a philosophy that is less tolerant and more coercive while claiming to be exactly the opposite.
At any rate is flat-out absurd to claim that objectivism led to modern (il)liberalism. Very, very different philosophies.
>>78899109
It's pretty obvious when he says "pressured" in a negative connotation.
Not that I actually expect a honest conversation with a disengenous Kike, who uses autistic verbal nit picking, to try and debate the general point of a argument.
>IMAGE IS TWO MORALLY SUPERIOR OBJECTIVISTS ENGAGING IN CONSENTING BEHAVIOUR
Im not on my pc or laptops to save it but damn
>>78897391
I thought this was pretty weak shitposting.
But then you posted this >>78899680
>>78899562
I don't see 'coercion' as being a problem... individualism versus collectivism is an impractical debate to have, because might makes right, and the might of the collective will always be greater than that of the individual.
anyway: the argument 'I'm not hurting anyone else, so it's none of your business if I want to get high on amphetamines and hail Satan while railing a strung out 16 year old' underpins almost every liberal argument, and the idea that under 'mutual consent' everything becomes permissible is explicitly contrary to every faith and historical value that we've come across.
Your idea that 'mutual consent is what ultimately leads to happiness' was provided without argument, btw - if you think this is self-evident, it's not
ps. interracial couples are the perfect example of mutual consent, right?
libertarians get out now
Tippity top kek.
Best we got is you
>>78900289.
The fag who can't recognize, these fags, REALLY are morally superior in an objectivist definition of morality.
>seriously, show where in this comic this kind of insanity would fall under
And this cuck
>>78899109
Who literally says
>assuming Western civilization somehow ended and was rebuilt in time for you to be born into an era of unprecedented wealth* and prosperity*
Literally saying GDP and cheap iphones is s measure of societal success. If that doesn't set off your Jew alarm... You don't belong here.
>>78899680
Again, please point out the specific text when you're trying to make an argument. An argument, you see, is a claim supported by evidence.
Just trying to give you access to the whole verbal nit-picky toolkit, goyim :^)
Also, image is...yech. A child's capacity for reason is not fully formed, and thus "consent" is not entirely possible. Please don't try to straw-man your way through this. Do read the sticky, though, you'll find it as the first post at this lovely site:
4chan.org/pol/
stupid ass edgy shit that makes no sense
this is what degenerates look like folks
>>78900772
Already made my argument m8. And the kids a legal age bug chasing objectivist.
Same with these people too. They're all objectivists.
>>78900771
Again with the literally.
Again with the putting words in my mouth.
Oy vey.
This old dog's going to bed in the supposed ruins of "Westetn" civilization. Certainly the ruins of Western critical thinking.
G'night kiddies.
>>78901134
Come on man. Actually address the issue of an Objectivists take on degeneracy before pretending to march away in troll triumph.
I love debate, but when I actually have to walk people through the steps about why the 60s were bad, or what is meant when "Western Civilization went to shit", shitposting back at shitposters is the only appropriate response.
>>78901431
2nd part.
>>78901134
cowardly exit. Libertarian sperginess is coming through strong in your posting.
Have fun 'critically thinking' your way right back to modern America, genius.
>>78901431
I'm almost willing to think you're serious because I know Weed can damage your brain, but no.
The entire shitpost rests on the flimsy premise of "Appeals to Authority Are Wrong; ergo Its Jewish Propaganda to get children to rebel against their parents!".
I know you're trying to be clever, and you imagine posting fag pics and crying (((Jew))) will help you here, but no.
>>78900364
You're missing the point. The problem isn't
> 'I'm not hurting anyone else, so it's none of your business if I want to get high on amphetamines and hail Satan while railing a strung out 16 year old'
The problem is
> 'Im going to get a bunch of people and the full force of the law to force you to accept that this is good and provide it to me'
People have been and will do forever degenerate bullshit in secret, and people have stomped it out where they've found it and crusaded against it. This is a necessary condition of human nature. The problem is you can't force people to do what's right, but you can sure as shit force people to not stop what's wrong.
>>78893991
Nice one, lad.
thanks
>>78902590
>"its Jewish Propaganda to get children to rebel against their parents!"
I must be getting shitposted now. Are you implying it's not?
Are you denying the anti-establishment, "fuck social norms" hooliganism of the 60s DIDN'T fuck up the family unit?
That the the sheer agglomeration of single motherhood and divorce acceptance, isn't, from hippy mothers who wanted their little girls to "relive" their prime?
That the drug war(1971) wasn't a result of mass pharmaceutical drug abuse at the time?
No, cause this comic is obviously referencing this Ages SJW, political correctness and White Guilt problems, 30 years after its publishing. Just like how it's so vague as to reference any problem of any given time perriod.
I assure you. Anybody can read this comic and assume it's directed for their sensibilities. It speaks to no direct cause and affect. Just,
>"look at all this authority telling you how to live your life."
>"they are all so obviously wrong, and your opinion right"
>"so I'll throw in words like logic, good, and evil, but never give a true name to them, just people using things to oppress you"
So I post degenerates to highlight the flaw in Objectivist philosophy. You KNOW, on some fundamental level, that what these people are doing is destructive to themselves, and the world around them....
But you don't have the language to label it. Cause an objectivists only true concern is the None Agression Principle.
Even when this consenting, objectively doesn't directly effect you behaviour is you.
>IMAGE WARNING
>>78893991
Bumping while in ER waiting for X-ray
Tysm anon.
>>78898535
>he tries to argue that 'the actions of two consenting adults' are moral if they don't interfere with the collective
No he argued that just because they ought not consent to a bad deal doesn't mean the collective can strip them of the ability to do it or they also strip them of their freedom to live the life they choose and learn good from bad rather than be told what is good and bad.
>>78894478
>huge truth bomb
just nuke this world senpai
>>78903986
>>78903103
>>78901526
>>78901431
>>78901009
>oh man, my wife fucks other guys all the time but not me
>and when i want to join they punch me and i cry
>thats why i am in the room next to them crying and wanken while imagine how they have sex
>I-Im not a cuckold, you are all just close minded
>you re all just Objectivist rationalizing your opinions on certain things, and using those rationalized opinions as a anchor point in the wall of your own ego which they climb
>im so smart
holy shit, kill yourself you fucking retard.
Its very easy to notice how political ideologies stem from the personal experience of people believing in them
Like for example libertarian stuff is all about being free from opressive society yet conpletely lacks any solution to possibility of people accumulating insane amounts of power through legal means, like say rothshilds or soros
In general any "ideology" is bad because our world is not ideal or even idealistic, thus only working political models are just a mix of measures to improve current situation based on circumstances
Since usually circumstances are different for all countries its only natual that then have different laws and life styles
>>78900364
except for the part where I don't consent to having blacks eat at my diner, and all that shit you just tried to defend forces me to serve them
>>78894841
Part the way through some good stuff bump.
Can you imaging giving a copy of this to Trigglypuff, or leaving a few of these comics in "safe spaces"?
Any Uni-anons want to see if they can make people flip their shit leaving these at their uni?
>>78894181
This one is spot one with a certain group of today
