/lit/ - Literature

>>8495523
If those "like me" survive by becoming subject to the strong, then how are "we" against life? To try to beat things that are obviously beyond your capability, as pretty as it sounds, is tremendously stupid and self-destructive. Who wants an empire that they can't enjoy? By their "strength" the strong are used by everyone: their peers, their culture, their epoch.

Beethoven had no peers. He ended up deaf. Now it is we that listen to his songs, it is we that pass them on because we enjoy them, because we don't mind being taken by them. Are we the slaves? Or is his name just a convenient quality seal?
Napoleon crowned himself. Hundreds of men would die for him. He was not defeated by an army, true, but his humiliation was even bigger: he was defeated by the Russians allowing him to march on their land, by the destruction of their wealth by their own hands--nobody benefitted, nobody won anything. What is more pitiful than that?
On mass extinctions it is always the bigger animals that die first--it wasn't the dinosaurs, but the little mammals that inheritted the earth. Nowadays rats and cockroaches still resist being eliminated. To even try to do too much is a waste of energy for destined for oh so greater things--those which are still vulnerable to the even smaller diseases that clung to pests.

How is a strong man above anyone? How are they not exploited by the weaker which then reap the benefits, even the fame in the form of the nation? How are they not actually under the whole world?