PalimpsestNavigatorThe Con Man and Destructive Dogma
PKMKII [none/use name]No consideration of material conditions, just “great man” theory of societal change. Deeply unserious.
Fair. Although the question (MY QUESTION, btw) was addressed, and great man history is exactly the name of the global political game right now. Yes, as unfortunate as that is, it is a relevant lens for this line of thought.
Maybe consider the value in a discussion before flinging shit.
WittyProfileName2 [she/her]great man history is exactly the name of the global political game right now.
What zero historical materialist analysis does to a person.
True. That’s why the people who create this awful trend are not bachelor’s students with philosophy dreams.
My completely unsolicited advice to you: let it stay as dreams.
Making someone feel unwelcome for sharing their modest but earnest contribution is something a Trump supporter would say.
In another post, in response to a story about people getting fucked up by the AI slop pipeline bullshit you said this:
Survival of the fittest also applies to a chungus who has their first existential crisis and decides to ferment.
So spare me your pleas for sympathy you Darwin mangling, pseudointellectual fascist.
I did say those things. I did mean them. I still do.
That’s Darwin, by the way, not Hitler.
That’s Darwin, by the way, not Hitler.
And yet you’ve written off some people as an inherently lower order of being. And much like Hitler, you’ve appropriated a veneer of evolutionary biology completely detached from the actual theories to do it.
Anarcho-BolshevikAnd so with this mention of the preservation of the species and of the race in Mein Kampf we come to the second principal consideration: Hitler’s Weltanschauung, his view of life, which some historians, especially in England, have seen as a crude form of Darwinism but which in reality, as we shall see, has its roots deep in German history and thought.
Like […] a whole array of German philosophers, historians, kings, generals and statesmen, Hitler saw all life as an eternal struggle and the world as a jungle where the fittest survived and the strongest ruled—a “world where one creature feeds on the other and where the death of the weaker implies the life of the stronger.”
Mein Kampf is studded with such pronouncements: “In the end only the urge for self-preservation can conquer […] Mankind has grown great in eternal struggle, and only in eternal peace does it perish. […] Nature […] puts living creatures on this globe and watches the free play of forces. She then confers the master’s right on her favorite child, the strongest in courage and industry […] The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel […]”
For Hitler the preservation of culture “is bound up with the rigid law of necessity and the right to victory of the best and strongest in the world. Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight, in this world of eternal struggle, do not deserve to live. Even if this were hard—that is how it is!”¹²
(Source.)
