He may not have gone to a person and either knifed them or otherwise shot them in the head in person, but make no mistake, he actively rooted for confirmed mass murderers like Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Che Guevara (heck, Sartre alongside the Soviet propaganda industry are pretty much the reason Che's even a cultural icon right now and considered a hero even when he's not [he if anything was a complete monster]), and the like (and not only defended the Munich massacres, but even went as far as to imply that the French Revolutionaries should have killed more people) and if that's not enough, he trained the Khmer Rouge in committing their horrific acts of mass murder, and in the preface to The Wretched of the Earth, Sartre actually advocated for the killing of Europeans during the Algerian War (I'll even quote him: "When the peasant takes a gun in his hands, the old myths grow dim, the old prohibitions are one by one forgotten. The rebel's weapon is the proof of his humanity. For in the first days of the revolt you must kill: to shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time: there remains a dead man and a free man."), which means not only does he have a lot of blood on his hands for that, and thus qualify as a mass murderer, he actually committed treason (remember, France was not only an European country, it was the country Algeria was fighting against). I might as well add that he rooted for Stalin, Mao, and Sartre/Castro while knowing FULL well about their committing barbaric acts of mass murder (heck, he cheered for Stalin even AFTER his sordid actions came to light), and in the case of Pol Pot, he even educated him and what would become the Khmer Rouge, meaning the Khmer Rouge's murders are all on Sartre. If he actively advocates and cheerleads people he knew full well were mass murderers and even goes as far as to advocate killing people pointlessly other than just to do it in an Existentialist sense, that makes him no different from a murderer in my book.
And let me ask you something else: Which one is worse: A guy who at least wants to marry one woman alone, or even has some moral conflicts about going for a girl belonging to a race he doesn't like, or repeatedly committing serial adultery, deliberately vying for his various girlfriends to fight each other for his attentions when he doesn't even remotely love them, and going by some statements in the article can come across as a borderline rapist and clearly has absolutely no qualms with what he is doing whatsoever? If you ask me, I'd say Sartre's the worst guy of the bunch, especially when he via his own statements, and his known support of various mass-murderers and even going as far as to outright advocate for mass murder himself, comes across more like the Joker from the Dark Knight and his desire to just watch the world burn. At least Frollo genuinely attempted to live the Christian walk, and even Gaston at least did try to be faithful to Belle. What on earth makes Sartre redeemable compared to them?
Here's another bit about Sartre you should read up on:
http://www.hoover.org/research/absolute-intellectual
For the incriminating quote: "A revolutionary regime must get rid of a certain number of individuals that threaten it and I see no other means for this than death; it is always possible to get out of a prison; the revolutionaries of 1793 probably didn’t kill enough people." And there's a whole lot more to it than there. And you might as well read up on this as well: https://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Sartre-resartus-6201
reply
share