About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 5:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara says: But would there not have been something evil already in him in order for him to find those ideas acceptable? It's scarcely as though they were rationally persuasive.

That the stage was set in his early youth I have little doubt of, but his Vienna-Munich-WWI period was THE major crises period in his life. It followed his being rejected to the Academy of Fine Arts, later his failure to succeed as an independent artist, the death of his mother, the loss of his middle class status when the family pension was reduced, and the shattering effects of trench warfare in Flanders. All these events occurred within the same decade of his life. He was in no way unique in his being attracted to extremist views. At the time the mayor of Vienna was a Pan German party member as well as a member of the Anti-Semitic League. What we call extremism, was mainstream.

 

These ideas, as irrational as they may seem to us today, were widely accepted by a certain segment of German and Austrian society. Millions of Austrians well before WWI longed for re-unification with Germany, the expulsion of Slavs and Jews, and the break-up of the multi-ethnic Habsburg Empire, that they saw as threat to their racial purity. Simultaneously, millions of other Austrians and Germans were toying with Communist ideology. The reality was that the Monarchies of Europe were doomed from within.

 

I disagree that the ideas were not persuasive, irrational as they may be. The ideas afford the ability to transfer personal failure onto indefinable scapegoats, they allow mediocre men to feel as if they are part of a greater whole, they allow men to reject the society of their parents, they allow men to have a sense of self-esteem; second-hand as it may be. And when those ideas become mainstream with a society; they are not even considered radical or reactionary by the majority.

 

Also, the irrational part was not as clear then as today. Authoritarian governments were the norm, not the exception. Eugenics was considered a legitimate science and taught at Universities, and Aryan-Paganism was all the rage among the upper classes that wanted to reject what they viewed as a far too 'Semitic' religion in Christianity. Aryan-Paganism was mixture of the Nordic myths, revisionist-Christianity, and Racism. The ideology of the 'warrior super-state' was the by-product of German philosophers such as Kant, Hegel, Fichte, and a purposefully misinterpreted Nietzsche.

 

The primary alternative to all this nonsense offered at the time was not 'democratic principles' but Marxism. In many ways it can be said that the entire populace of the era was in a state of historical crises. Adolf Hitler was the faceless man in the street, common -not uncommon. What set him apart later were his oratorical gifts, organizational skills, and fanatical determination. He was the culmination of the Atilla reaction to the Witch Doctor radicalism of the times. A failure as an artist, he would use an entire nation as his canvas.

 

 George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/06, 9:10am)


Post 61

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I do not believe that he was inherently evil, if that is what you mean."

I hope that no Objectivist would believe that anyone is "inherently" evil, not even Hitler or Stalin. To do so would be pure emotive rationalism on their part.

I saw an interesting documentary recently that compared Hitler to Stalin. They shared a lot in common not surprisingly, but they had big differences in character as well.

Hitler had the passion to be an artist, but no direction or discipline, and was basically a disgruntled drifter. When WWI came along, he signed up in order to have a "sense of purpose". After Germany lost the war, he banded together with other upset WWI vets to form a political party based on his new-found military ideals. He was good at whipping up crowds of people into a frenzy of nationalism, racism and loyalty. However, he never changed his undisciplined and disorganized ways. He slept until past midday and generally was not interested in the affairs of state - unless it was some personal project of his own. He left day-to-day business up to his ruthless subordinates.

Stalin however, was always very organized and meticulous in his pursuit of power. He had absolutely no talent for public speaking and started a "cult of personality" around himself instead. He got the nickname "Comrade Card Index" because he was so methodical in his record keeping. He was always working at his desk in isolation at the Kremlin. He had his finger on the pulse of everything going on in the USSR. He personally put through all the orders for people to be liquidated during his bloody purges. He became more and more paranoid and trusted his subordinates less and less.

Who was more evil?  They were both incredibly ruthless and malevolent and their actions resulted in the destruction of life on a massive scale. Not really worth comparing. They were equally evil.


Post 62

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 8:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You are correct Marcus, I mis-spoke when I used the term 'inherently'. What I meant to convey to Barbara is that although the seeds may have been planted earlier, it was the 'personal crises' stage of his development that I believe saw the flowering of those seeds. The 'point of no return' moment.

George


Post 63

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
quote
quote -By the way, one other important candidate was left off the poll. He usually tops the list of "The Most Influential People In History." He had messianic delusions. And his followers dragged a flourishing Western world into 1000 years of darkness and stagnation.

At least on a consequentialist basis, Jesus Christ could very well be the most evil man in history.


TRUE OBJECTIVITY

IF THERE BE ANOTHER RESPONSE TO THIS POST IT WOULD BE SHOCKING.
 



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


User ID Password or create a free account.