[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 1650458926691.png (100 KB, 500x235)
100 KB
100 KB PNG
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
>>
>>20569617
Go back to /pol/ or wherever
>>
>>20569622
This is not related to politics, so what point would be there in going on pol?
>>
>>20569617
>cant be questioned
>gadaffi, putin
Hm
>>
>>20569678
He said ingenuity, not morals or actions.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>20569617
No such thing, all of the people you mentioned are and were products of their circumstances and mass movements.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.