For anyone who doesn't know the context: This quote is literal fascist rhetoric to promote machismo and contempt for the weak.
It might resonate the first time you hear it (most good propaganda does), but if you contemplate it for more than 10 seconds and you'll realize it's obviously untrue.
You're interacting on an open forum with people from all over the world, who couldn't care less what ideas are considered permitted or not permitted according to your local party line.
Why does it have to be interpreted as fascist rhetoric? What propaganda does it embed? Why does everything have to revolve around hatred?
Also, you don't have to be macho or physically strong to be strong. That just seems like your own bias leaking into the discussion.
That it might promote contempt for weakness might be true, though, and it didn't cross my mind. I don't like that it does that. At the same time I don't think weakness should be glorified either. Ideally, weak people should be helped to develop their own strong self.
Thank you for posting that! I've not read it yet. It seems like an interesting read (I love esoteric trivia like this!). I started it but realised it's much longer than I am prepared for this late at night. So, I'll try to read it over the coming days.
I don't know if it improves later, but they seem to only consider physical prowess as a form of strength. I generally interpreted this as strength of mind.
Also, I've taken the phrase less literally than they did. Man to me implied "human" (ie the same as man kind) because these quotes are usually designed to be succinct and memorable. They seem to think it's exclusive to human males.
But I've not read it in full yet, so we'll see when I finish it
It might resonate the first time you hear it (most good propaganda does), but if you contemplate it for more than 10 seconds and you'll realize it's obviously untrue.