No.1810508
Log off
No.1810568
>>1810506Hmmm, for
SÉX purposes?
No.1810668
>>1810506the bourgeoisie pet their dogs and love their children just like you do. what determines their behavior is their class interests. We need to do away with the idea that these people are "pure evil" or whatever. Sure some of them are particularly sadistic and will do whatever they want given the chance, but so are lots of proles, who will happily use the revolution as an excuse to live out violent fantasies of raping or whatever. Sociopaths like that are a small minority, who show up in every class and demographic group, and that's a matter of brain chemistry rather than class interests. For the most part, the bourgeoisie are just trying to protect their way of life. Incidentally their way of life relies on exploiting a ton of people through profiteering mechanisms. These mechanisms were set up long before they were born during the dawn of capitalism. They are raised from birth to believe they are entitled to their way of life because they "innovate" and "give to charity." They have myths which allow them to justify their behavior themselves. They think they inherited wealth because their family proved their merit in the past through exemplary behavior. They believe bourgeois charity exonerates them from the profiteering they do. They don't see the havoc they cause in the lives of poor people because they are insulated from it by a strata of petit bourgeois and managerial bootlickers. The master does not the wounds opened by the overseer's whip. So all in all they're just normal people for the most part. Communism isn't about lynching every last bourgeois cretin, it's about ending their class dictatorship by fundamentally changing the mode of production, which constitutes the economic base of society. Bourgeois individuals and their behavior is a superstructural consequence of the economic base. Hope this helps!
No.1810670
>>1810509Why is it "legal" is she his cousin? Is she 17? Both?
No.1810749
>>1810506>banality of evil type thing.The overrated Hannah Arendt strikes again. Evil can express itself through anyone. It's only considered "banal" when the people who do evil, superficially look/act "banal." If people doing evil looked like supermodels would her saying change to the "Beauty of Evil"?
Human's are close cousins of chimps and they are basically "evil" i.e. power/status obsessed violent killers. As humans though, we have the ability to overcome our lower nature. No need to obsess, just think of reactionaries as dumb chimps who may need to be put in zoos one day.
>>1810670Curious about his too
No.1810752
Well, they are human. You need to not moralize so much at least when strategizing.
No.1810944
>>1810506>>1810752This is the same type of logic UK loyalists used their Queen for when making propaganda
>AW LOOK HOW ADORABLE SHE IS WITH THAT DRESS, SHES JUST LIKE YOUR GRANDMA >LOOK SHE'S HUMAN, SHE DID A FUNNY MOMENTBloodsuckers living on blood money. Why do you think they would feel the need to show how their private life at all? They want to be humanized so that their dirty deeds can go ignored.
No.1810949
>they honestly look just like me
Are you the girl or the smiling guy?
No.1811010
>>1810749>The overrated Hannah Arendt strikes again.Extremely relevant:
https://mronline.org/2024/03/29/why-the-left-should-reject-heideggers-thought-part-1-the-question-of-being/>Heideggerian thought is everywhere. A list of thinkers influenced by Heidegger reads like a “who’s who” of famous twentieth century philosophers. Foucault said: “For me, Heidegger has always been the essential philosopher.”1 Derrida once called Heidegger “the great unavoidable thinker of the century.”2 Sartre conceived of Being and Nothingness while reading Heidegger’s “What is Metaphysics?” Deleuze acknowledges the influence of Heidegger in the Preface to Difference and Repetition.3 Žižek wrote his first book on Heidegger.4 Many of Heidegger’s students became famous philosophers, including several who significantly impacted political theory: Hannah Arendt would develop the discourse of “totalitarianism” found in liberal philosophy, Leo Strauss would influence the neoconservative movement, and Herbert Marcuse would be a leading thinker for the New Left. It seems surprising that Heidegger should exert this much influence on contemporary thought, given that<he was an unapologetic Nazi who began each lecture with “Heil Hitler” during his tenure as rector of Freiburg.>One wonders, especially, why he has been embraced by so many thinkers on the Left. No.1811032
>Who are these guys?>>1810512Not a bad idea actually, if everyone is elite, then elitism is gone.
No.1811045
>>1810944They're human, but that doesn't absolve them or anything. People dehumanize their enemies too much, then when they realize the enemy has human qualities, they let their guard down as a result. Humanize, but steel yourself as well.
No.1811047
>>1811010>he was an unapologetic Nazi who began each lecture with “Heil Hitler” during his tenure as rector of Freiburg.Is this supposed to be an argument?
No.1811106
>>1810670>>1810749Possibly they had a private ceremony before signing the legal papers, or vice versa.
No.1811143
>>1810749wasnt arendts thing that evil is not as often done by supervillainesque people like hitler but instead thousands of little yes men who do what their jobs require of them because theyve not thought about it? that the job justifies itself by being a job. that villains arent calculating machiavellian actors but often just losers who act out the needs of empire out of the type of boring milquetoast personality that just does things because of wanting to fit into normalcy?
No.1811148
>>1810506IDK where you got the impression this us your blog, anon.
No.1811162
>>1811143yeah that was her point with that phrase, and it was a good point, despite the fact that arendt was a reactionary chauvinist herself. she's interesting as a right wing liberal, its a shame i need to seethe whenever shes brought up by uncritical liberals see her as the whole anti-"totalitarian" (meme term she herself helped cement)
No.1811167
>>1811106Oh so just a courthouse marriage. OP is really shocked that normies don't look like Gollum, twisted by rage?
No.1811219
>>1811143>>1811162>evil is not as often done by supervillainesque people like hitler but instead thousands of little yes men who do what their jobs require of them because theyve not thought about itAm I missing something? Her big point is that people who are superficially deemed boring, uncharismatic, unthinking push-overs can be evil too? Like no one understood that before her profound insights on the subject?
The basis of Christianity is that everyone is born evil. Did post-WW2 western liberals just forget about the religion that has been in charge of their culture for 2000 years?
No.1811251
>>1811219i know it sounds pathetic but at least the majority of americans genuinely have trouble understanding this point. they think murder is something that murderers dk and rape is something rapists do, and those are either back alley warped cretins who are ugly and villainous or theyre genius level sociopath tricksters, instead of largely average dull people doing shitty things.
arendts real "contribution" is her "analysis of totalitarianism", which is nonsense taken at face value but does provide an informative view into the mind of how liberal ideology mystifies the 20th century. banality of evil is kind of a humanities student meme, like "kafkaesque"
No.1811343
>>1811251>back alley warped cretins who are ugly and villainous or theyre genius level sociopath tricksters, instead of largely average dull people doing shitty things.This is clearly a idea perpetuated by a sheltered middle-class: projecting it's criminality onto only the lower and upper classes.
>banality of evil is kind of a humanities student memeWhile Arendt taking this so seriously is a joke, I'm starting to think it's fine as an antidote to the "normal people can't be bad!" attitude. It probably needed to be spread around. I've kind of come around to the idea in a way.
Unique IPs: 22