mixedpersonalities
True Mohammed
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2025
- Posts
- 182
- Reputation
- 274
This thread is very, very abridged. This is just a summary of a conversation I had with a friend.
Upon reading Mein kampf, Two major questions struck me.
How was Hitler so powerful?
How was his ideological stance so firm on the nazis and Germans alike?
Then I found a video;This video essentially depicts the trial of a nazi officer who's name I seemingly cannot remember. This nazi officer was held guilty for the murder of 1.5 million European jews.
One of his to-be victims, named Hannah Ardent, managed to escape.
She ended up becoming a philosopher studying the concept of totalitarianism at Harvard. She was also the judge in that officers trial.
During the trial, many Germans and Jewish people expected the nazi officer to be a soulless, mindless monster who would gloat in his oh-so revered 'glory'.
But he didn't. He was clueless, docile , simply admitting guilt without emotion. Many were disturbed, scared and some even emotionally scarred.
Hannah wasn't. She hypothesized that this numbness was nothing but the soldier living what is his life simply through obeying orders.
Totalitarianism as an ideology, is at its strongest when people's thoughts are bound to a limit.
This is how it worked with the nazis.
Any exception wasn't just a deviation in the status quo and neither was it considered defiance.
You were seen as either odd, or subhuman, no different from the countless murdered.
Therefore to fit in, they didn't reason with the radical beliefs. They simply accepted it, and bound themselves to what can only be described as a destructive cage of 'thought'.
The absence of critical thinking and dissemination is what made these people who they were.
They weren't evil, they were simply believing in what they presumed were meant to believe in.
After reading and reflecting upon this, I could not help but allude to how such hitherto tactics are mixed in with everyday life.
Think about it, reels, tiktok, shorts, any form of content really. When a ideology exists, people choose to conform to it rather than critically question it
One such ideology that I found most fitting was the 'blackpill'. Men have been silently indoctrinated, and yet they believe they are the free thinking.
Ardent argues that for a human to truly be free from this sort of scenario, they must openly share thoughts on forums. Humans must practice conscious and critical thinking.
Whether it be student unions, councils or anything of that matter.
The presence of thinking and reasoning is what gives our actions meaning.
The worst part is, I have just given another example of what I just mentioned as I spoke.
None of the thought was truly mine, it was Ardent's. I simply regurgitated it through my own viewpoint based on modern day knowledge.
Therefore I am in that cage, just barely poking out.
It's a paradox really, we don't know how much of our thoughts we really own. Yet, we somehow happen to own each and every independent thought.
Upon reading Mein kampf, Two major questions struck me.
How was Hitler so powerful?
How was his ideological stance so firm on the nazis and Germans alike?
Then I found a video;This video essentially depicts the trial of a nazi officer who's name I seemingly cannot remember. This nazi officer was held guilty for the murder of 1.5 million European jews.
One of his to-be victims, named Hannah Ardent, managed to escape.
She ended up becoming a philosopher studying the concept of totalitarianism at Harvard. She was also the judge in that officers trial.
During the trial, many Germans and Jewish people expected the nazi officer to be a soulless, mindless monster who would gloat in his oh-so revered 'glory'.
But he didn't. He was clueless, docile , simply admitting guilt without emotion. Many were disturbed, scared and some even emotionally scarred.
Hannah wasn't. She hypothesized that this numbness was nothing but the soldier living what is his life simply through obeying orders.
Totalitarianism as an ideology, is at its strongest when people's thoughts are bound to a limit.
This is how it worked with the nazis.
Any exception wasn't just a deviation in the status quo and neither was it considered defiance.
You were seen as either odd, or subhuman, no different from the countless murdered.
Therefore to fit in, they didn't reason with the radical beliefs. They simply accepted it, and bound themselves to what can only be described as a destructive cage of 'thought'.
The absence of critical thinking and dissemination is what made these people who they were.
They weren't evil, they were simply believing in what they presumed were meant to believe in.
After reading and reflecting upon this, I could not help but allude to how such hitherto tactics are mixed in with everyday life.
Think about it, reels, tiktok, shorts, any form of content really. When a ideology exists, people choose to conform to it rather than critically question it
One such ideology that I found most fitting was the 'blackpill'. Men have been silently indoctrinated, and yet they believe they are the free thinking.
Ardent argues that for a human to truly be free from this sort of scenario, they must openly share thoughts on forums. Humans must practice conscious and critical thinking.
Whether it be student unions, councils or anything of that matter.
The presence of thinking and reasoning is what gives our actions meaning.
The worst part is, I have just given another example of what I just mentioned as I spoke.
None of the thought was truly mine, it was Ardent's. I simply regurgitated it through my own viewpoint based on modern day knowledge.
Therefore I am in that cage, just barely poking out.
It's a paradox really, we don't know how much of our thoughts we really own. Yet, we somehow happen to own each and every independent thought.
