[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-06-09: Search is working again.
2022-05-12: Ghost posting is now globally disabled. 2022: Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 99 KB, 500x235, 1650458926691.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20569617 No.20569617 [Reply] [Original]

By "significant" I mean people whose ingenuity can't be questioned, so people like Putin, Gaddafi, Stalin, Ho Chi minh and the likes, not nobodies given substance by propaganda like Churchill and Lincoln.

And by unbiased, I mean actually unbiased, not some jewish crap

>> No.20569622

>>20569617
Go back to /pol/ or wherever

>> No.20569627

>>20569622
This is not related to politics, so what point would be there in going on pol?

>> No.20569678

>>20569617
>cant be questioned
>gadaffi, putin
Hm

>> No.20569733

>>20569678
He said ingenuity, not morals or actions.

>> No.20570020

>>20569617
>Stalin
Stalin was notoriously uninventive. He was cunning. But he got where he did through sycophancy, not making a fuss, and letting everyone else fight it out until he was the last one standing. Putin was similar. But with regards to ingenuity I would stay Stalin is highly questionable: he repeated other ideas, he sought consensus. He was bereft of original thought.
Most charismatic leaders are bereft of original thought: it's what makes their message digestible by the masses.

>> No.20570022

>>20569617
No such thing, all of the people you mentioned are and were products of their circumstances and mass movements.

>>
Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action