
Who Goes Nazi? (1941) - d_e_solomon
https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
======
hodwik
Written by Dorothy Thompson, first journalist kicked out of Nazi Germany.

She also said:

"No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for
election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the
instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. ... When our dictator turns up
you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for
everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say 'Heil' to him, nor
will they call him 'Führer' or 'Duce.' But they will greet him with one great
big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of 'O.K., Chief! Fix it like you
wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!'"

~~~
sandworm101
>> No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for
election on the platform of dictatorship.

She obviously never imagined the state of American politics today. A good
chunk of them now openly want a "strongman" in the high office. The degree to
which they want to be bullied by those they elect boarders on socio-political
masochism.

So I disagree with Thompson. To say that people don't see the dictator coming
is too easy. The people must be held to account for the leaders they create,
else the cycle repeat.

~~~
danjayh
Totally agree. The current congress welcomes Obama's use of (likely illegal)
executive orders to accomplish things, because it means they can avoid
responsibility and accountability. They don't fight to retain their
constitutionally granted powers, because all they really want it somebody else
to do the dirty work -- end result is they allow unprecedented levels of
executive control to go basically unchecked ... and whether or not you agree
with what's being done with it now, it's a slippery slope, because each
president is different, but they'll all have this precedent to point back to
as justification.

~~~
deciplex
And, there is a cap on the maximum number of voters who could possibly give a
damn at any given moment. Most of the people who would raise concerns about
these executive orders will not be too concerned about overreach by the
executive once the next Republican President is in office, nor is it likely
they spoke up when the last one was in. And so it goes.

That's the true danger in divisive politics - when seeing that 'your team'
scores points while they can becomes more important than good policy and
governance.

------
keithpeter
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Peierls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Peierls)

When I was a postgrad at Birmingham University, around 1982/3 ish we had a
talk by Peierls. He discussed his feelings about Heisenberg joining the Nazi
party (you had to join the Party to continue to be a University lecturer in
the late 1930s - that was when Einsten resolved to leave Berlin).

My recollection (reaching back 30+ years here folks) is that Peierls did not
blame Heisenberg- it was how it was. Peierls recollected Heisenberg talking
about 'white waistcoats' and people leaving who didn't have to leave, thus
reducing the number of overseas jobs available to people who did have to leave
(i.e. German Jewish academics).

What I'm thinking here is; How do you see the end of the wedge when it is very
thin?

------
lumberjack
I think to better understand why people are attracted to Fascism it is better
to read about the rise of Mussolini than about the rise of Nazism.

Mussolini essentially was going to make Italy "great again". He was a former
socialist but not an internationalist. While communists promised economic
justice, fascists promised a better prouder more powerful nation.

Today you expect wealthy people to be economically liberal but in those days
many were attracted by the premises of fascism.

There also this classic: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICng-
KRxXJ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICng-KRxXJ8)

A teacher creates a fascist movement to show his students how they can be
duped into one.

~~~
fennecfoxen
> Today you expect wealthy people to be economically liberal but in those days
> many were attracted by the premises of fascism.

Oh, fascism can be great for the wealthy. Your company becomes an instrument
of the state, turning your economic power into political power, and you don't
need to worry about nonsense like Competition anymore.

~~~
zipwitch
I've seen the term 'inverted totalitarianism' to describe how the US is in a
similar, but different place to pre-WWII fascism.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism)

------
tcbawo
This article is especially interesting, given it was written before the the US
entered the war and before the full extent of Nazi atrocities was known.

I'm reminded of C.S Lewis's speech about the Inner Ring (1944):
[http://www.mit.edu/~hooman/ideas/the_inner_ring.htm](http://www.mit.edu/~hooman/ideas/the_inner_ring.htm)

~~~
arethuza
I wonder what would have happened if Hitler (who apparently didn't give the
matter much thought) hadn't declared war on the US?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_agai...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_%281941%29)

~~~
Animats
Didn't matter. Pearl Harbor brought the US into the war.

If Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, things could have been very different.
Hitler thought Russia would be a fast, easy conquest. It wasn't, and Germany
found itself in a two-front war. It cost the USSR 20 million dead to beat
Germany, and cost Germany 5 million dead, 80% of German casualties. Germany
was an ally of Russia until 45 minutes before the attack. Much of Russian
paranoia comes from this.

If Germany had consolidated its gains on the continent of Europe without
trying to expand beyond that, we might today have a Greater Germany covering
much of what's now the European Union. Britain would be on the outside, in the
position Taiwan is now with respect to China. Russia would be the big power
next door, just as it is to China now. Germany could have cut a peace deal
with the US and Britain in that situation.

~~~
ptaipale
> _Germany was an ally of Russia until 45 minutes before the attack. Much of
> Russian paranoia comes from this._

Germany was an ally of RUssia, and learned from Soviets much of how to run an
extermination camp, and Russian provided Germany with space to practice armor
warfare.

However, there is considerable debate speculating that Germany's initial
success in Barbarossa was simply because the Soviet army was planning to
attack Germany on July 6, and therefore its formation was totally arranged for
offense, and failed miserably when attacked.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy)

Anyway, the Russian paranoia didn't really need a German betrayal to develop.
The Russian military had been internally wiped out in the paranoid purges of
1930's.

------
d_e_solomon
I always thought that the answer to this question is less important than that
it prompts to reader to question themselves on why or why not they would join
the Nazis. It's easy to look back through the lens of time and assume that we,
good wholesome people, would not become Nazis, but if you're in the moment,
what happens?

------
BogusIKnow
"Dorothy Thompson (9 July 1893 – 30 January 1961) was an American journalist
and radio broadcaster, who in 1939 was recognized by Time magazine as the
second most influential woman in America next to Eleanor Roosevelt. She is
notable as the first American journalist to be expelled from Nazi Germany in
1934 and as one of the few women news commentators on radio during the 1930s.
She is regarded by some as the "First Lady of American Journalism."

\- Wikipedia

~~~
dang
Dorothy Thompson is a fascinating and important historical figure, hugely
famous in her prime, but much diminished when she died and largely forgotten
now. She is due to be rehabilitated. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen in
the next few years.

I've been told that [http://www.amazon.com/American-Cassandra-Life-Dorothy-
Thomps...](http://www.amazon.com/American-Cassandra-Life-Dorothy-
Thompson/dp/0316507245) is a good bio.

~~~
emgoldstein
Thompson, like many (if not most) American journalists of her time, was a
Stalin apologist in the Duranty circle:

[http://spartacus-educational.com/USAthompsonD.htm](http://spartacus-
educational.com/USAthompsonD.htm)

I'm not sure any intellectual who collaborated with Hitler should get points
for warning the world about Stalin. Or vice versa.

If Harper's had written an article called "Who Goes Bolshevik" in 1941, it
could have been much shorter: "pretty much everyone." Or at least, everyone
who mattered. If you wanted the truth about Stalin in 1941, you'd do much
better with the Voelkischer Beobachter than the New York Times.

~~~
dang
I don't know the details but that link doesn't come close to establishing that
she was a Stalin apologist.

~~~
pvg
It doesn't seem like it at all. Things she apparently wrote in 1946:

The West experienced moments of doubt, Thompson wrote, in which the outcome of
communist belief and behavior was questioned: "Can communist cultism,
organized like a medieval secret order, with a priesthood, a police and an
inquisition, reform itself into a modem, liberal, democratic movement?" Why,
during the war, did communist propagandists throughout the world demand an
immediate "second front", an attack on heavily fortified Western Europe by the
United States and Great Britain? "Did these obedient claques care nothing for
the lives of American boys? Were they listening to any voices but the voice of
Stalin?" "Yet, we said: No", Thompson continued. "We shall prove our
confidence, trust and trustworthiness. We shall hold faith that it will not be
betrayed. Loyalty, we said, begets loyalty." But as Germany collapsed, the
Soviet Union began "reversing every wartime pledge and policy. And not only
was the quarter of a century of communist despotism to be fastened again upon
the necks of the long suffering, heroically,enduring, eternally,hoping,
eternally,serving Russian people -but naked and unashamed it was seeking new
people to subject. "

~~~
emgoldstein
Ah, but that was 1946. The (American) party line had changed -- most American
liberals were anti-Stalinist in 1946.

A quick google search turns up this from 1943:

[http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11332745](http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11332745)

"Dorothy Thompson, the well-known columnist, writes: 'Russia does not want to
make an isolationist policy. Russia wants a friendly Europe in a friendly
world, with a system of collective security. There are signs of such hostility
in both Europe and America to Russia that it gives Russian leadership some
reason for suspicion. As things look at present, it is by no means certain
that defeat of Germany will assure a non-Fascist Europe or one prepared to
adopt a good-neighbor policy toward Russia."

Her views in 1946 are standard 1946 post-FDR New Dealism (after the Anglo-
Soviet split); her views in 1943 are standard 1943 New Dealism. You're just
hearing the party line; God only knows what she actually thought, and when.

It would be much easier to fight the memory hole if we didn't have these
ridiculous copyright laws, but a lot of original WWII propaganda (not cherry-
picked by modern hagiographers) remains on line. It's often pretty appalling
reading.

~~~
pvg
That's extremely thin gruel. You seem to want to paint any whiff of
Russia/Soviet sympathy as the equivalent of 'Stalin apologist' and reaching
even further, an equivalent to being a Nazi sympathizer. I don't think that's
a view that can easily be factually rather than ideologically supported.

------
woodruffw
Very thought provoking.

In spirit, it reminds me of _The True Believer_ [1], published about a decade
later. Take Nazism and replace it with any other movement of discontent (just
or unjust), and you have a general critique of mass movements _a la_ Hoffer.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer)

~~~
ericd
Interesting, thanks for the link. This part strikes me as particularly
relevant to the current state of things in the US, especially for blue
collar/middle class:

The "New Poor" are the most likely source of converts for mass movements/for
they recall their former wealth with resentment and blame others for their
current misfortune. Examples include the mass evictions of relatively
prosperous tenants during the English Civil War of the 1600s or the middle-
and working-classes in Germany who passionately supported Hitler in the 1930s
after suffering years of economic hardship. In contrast, the "abjectly poor"
on the verge of starvation make unlikely true believers as their daily
struggle for existence takes pre-eminence over any other concern.[5]

~~~
iofj
It's weird how this mirrors what you see with terrorists. Terrorists are
middle-class or upper-middle-class with very, very few poor among them.

I don't think that the "daily struggle for survival" is it. Rather I think
that the fact that poor are constantly forced to confront themselves with
reality and living with others that makes them less likely to join movements
like this.

Also, as a worker you'd have direct contact with members of this party
(because you don't get to choose the people you hang out with). It is much,
much harder to tell yourself a fictional story about what drives them. About
what they'd do if given power. By contrast you regularly find insane positions
among the upper classes. How hard is it to find an upper-middle-class or
higher Marxist on a university campus ? Not very hard, despite the fact that
he wouldn't be there in the system they advocate. Hell, there's Malthusians
among them too, whereas I've yet to meet the first poor worker defending the
virtues of killing of "enough" of the human race for a "sustainable population
of Earth" to me.

Having illusions about "grandeur" of race, of inherent virtues of one group
versus another, about the "good of the human race", ... is far easier when
you're not confronted with the underbelly of any city on a daily basis ...
when you're only confronted with who you choose to be confronted with.

------
kenjackson
I love the idea of reading articles from this time period on this topic. This
article though, with Mr A/B/C/... was bit much to handle though. Just felt
much too speculative.

~~~
HillRat
I would bet a barrel of reichmarks that these were real people. In fact, I'm
absolutely certain that "Mr. C" is the "saturnine" Lawrence Dennis, a former
State Department diplomat and Wall Street advisor considered the guiding
intellect of 1930s American fascism.

Fascinatingly, Dennis didn't grow up "Southern white trash." No, he actually
was a famous African-American child preacher, a background that he _did_ hide
successfully (though, reading between the lines of the article, not perhaps to
_everyone_ ) as he disavowed his family, appeared at Exeter on scholarship,
and traveled in the upper reaches of American society and eventually to the
far fringes of American, Italian and German fascism. It is a surpassing irony
that his hatred of Jim Crow segregation and contempt for the democracy that
allowed it led him to be welcomed inside the sanctum of those men who would
have imprisoned, shot or gassed him had they known the truth of his
background.

~~~
emgoldstein
Not entirely welcomed:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Dennis#Sedition_trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Dennis#Sedition_trial)

~~~
HillRat
Yep; the other irony was that his prosecutor was O. John Rogge, one of the
great liberal crusading attorneys of the day, who insisted on bringin charges
in order to drag militant racism into the light of day. So Dennis, spurred by
his hatred for American racism, made common cause with thuggish men who would
have happily hanged him from a tree, and as a result was prosecuted by a man
who otherwise would have been his natural political and moral ally. A complex
man, Lawrence Dennis. (There is one biography available, _The Color of
Fascism_ , which is a little too clunky to be authoritative, but which is well
worth reading. An equally unusual journey is that of Bayard Rustin, an openly
gay African American civil rights activist who studied under Gandhi,
introduced MLK to the theory of nonviolent activism, and ended up part of the
neoconservative movement in the Reagan administration.)

------
Animats
It's been a while since the last big, successful, popular, dictatorial,
charismatic movement like Nazism. Putin comes closest, but he came to power as
an insider, with Yeltsin supporting him. ISIS is religion-based, (even though
it was designed by a former Iraqi colonel who wasn't very religious [1]) and
those work differently. There are warlords in sub-Saharan Africa, but they're
usually not popular leaders. Remember, Hitler was elected Chancellor; he
didn't lead a revolution.

Yes, Trump makes somewhat Nazi-like noises. Not sure what to think about that.

[1] [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-saddams-
former...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-saddams-former-
soldiers-are-fueling-the-rise-of-isis/)

~~~
danieltillett
Just to nitpick John, Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. The nazi
party never won an election in their entire history.

~~~
olavk
The Nazi party was certainly the winner or the election in July 1932, where it
became the largest party in the parliament. In March 1933 elections it became
even larger, with 44% more than twice the size of the second largest party,
the SPD. It just never had an absolute majority - the parliamentary act which
effectively gave the party dictatorial powers was supported by the
conservative and center parties.

~~~
danieltillett
I guess we can argue over what it means for a political party to win, but the
Nazi party were never able to gain the support of the majority of the German
people.

~~~
olavk
Would you say that Angela Merkels CDU "never won an election"? That would be a
misleading statement when talking about a multi-party system rather than a
two-party system.

The Nazi party itself did not have an absolute majority at any point, but they
gained power by getting support from a majority in parliament, representing a
majority of the voters. The power was achieved legitimately, but then it was
used to dismantle the democratic system.

~~~
iofj
Is it a "misuse" of democratic power to dismantle the democratic system ?

Also, can you provide a link to that act of parliament ? I wonder about what
happened there.

~~~
olavk
Link:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)

------
BogusIKnow
"Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they
don’t-whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-
fashioned or however modern, go Nazi."

Could be a quote from the last psychiatrist.

------
lordleft
What an incredibly well written article, and quite thought provoking.

------
firasd
I found this interesting and prescient: "Hitler's Program", by Leon Trotsky
(1934). “Hitler has been widely regarded as a demagogue, a hysterical person,
and a comedian… It takes more than hysteria to seize power, and method there
must be in the Nazi madness.”
[https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/xx/hitler.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/xx/hitler.htm)

------
Animats
Who goes Nazi? These guys.[1] The Republican establishment donors who used to
think Trump was a nut, but now that he's leading, are coming around to
supporting him. They're terrified that he might win and they'd be out of
power, on the outside looking in.

Hitler had a lot of supporters like that.[2] Krupp (arms manufacturing),
Thyssen (arms), Kridoff (coal), and others all contributed funds before Hitler
took over. National Socialism wasn't anti-industry, it was "industry and the
state working together".

[1] [http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/266389-donors-
changing-...](http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/266389-donors-changing-
their-tune-on-donald-trump) [2] [http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/27/tom-
perkins-wrong-ger...](http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/27/tom-perkins-
wrong-germanys-1-percent-hitlers-allies-victims.html)

~~~
conistonwater
I think that's not the kind of thing she was aiming for in the article. She's
talking more about _personal_ decisions about whether you as a person would
join them, not these kinds of generic political deals. In other words, her
point is that if you know someone on a _personal_ level, that alone is enough
to tell if they would make the personal decision to go Nazi. It's not even
anything specifically to do with wealth or power, per se.

------
pessimizer
IIRC, the upper-middle class and the people who admire them. That seemed to be
what the article is saying, until I got to the conclusion.

[https://www.worldcat.org/title/logic-of-evil-the-social-
orig...](https://www.worldcat.org/title/logic-of-evil-the-social-origins-of-
the-nazi-party-1925-to-1933/oclc/123279201)

------
ZeroGravitas
I was surprised by the relatively clear description of a psychopath as being
ideal Nazi material. I'm not sure if it was a widely known concept at the time
or if they were just going by instinct.

~~~
pinewurst
Mr C?

"He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and
practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has
been humiliated into nihilism."

I didn't read him as psychopath so much as someone nursing serious grudges
about his perceived exclusion from the top rank of society. Enough that he'd
delight in "setting things right" even Nazi style.

That was, for me, the most interesting character insight.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I meant Mr D:

 _" He spends his time at the game of seeing what he can get away with. He is
constantly arrested for speeding and his mother pays the fines. He has been
ruthless toward two wives and his mother pays the alimony. His life is spent
in sensation-seeking and theatricality. He is utterly inconsiderate of
everybody. He is very good-looking, in a vacuous, cavalier way, and
inordinately vain. He would certainly fancy himself in a uniform that gave him
a chance to swagger and lord it over others."_

~~~
pinewurst
I think of D as a sociopath who could be Nazi or "patriot" depending on which
one would give him current advantage.

~~~
iofj
I wonder if there is any real limit to what positions such a person would
take. In every company I've ever worked for there's several examples of this
sort of person and ... I don't think I've ever even seen one with their own
political opinion. Personal advancement, or the potential for it, determines
their position in any argument, including political ones.

These days that usually makes them argue for "diversity" (taken to corporate
insanity extremes, like every other position).

I would agree with the article that given the environment in the 1930's that
would probably have made them nazis. But this has nothing to do with the
content of these ideologies, only with their relative success.

But what I find myself at very strong odds with is the smart person who clawed
his way up and finds himself beneath a glass ceiling, Mr. C. They usually have
a relatively insane political opinion that indeed originates from some past
humiliation. But that nearly always makes them some sort of extremist
socialist or outright marxist if they were poor in their childhood, or extreme
laissez-faire when not. And frankly, what is wrong with holding such an
opinion due to having had to endure serious hardship or humiliation as a
result (having been the rich kid in a poor school or a poor kid in a rich
school would pretty much guarantee such a position, no ?). I would imagine
that if indeed such a person became a nazi, one confrontation with a nazi
"type D" would cure him of such an affliction, as he'd immediately recognize
the ideology for what it is. Either such guys are nihilists or they have some
insane party affiliation.

Given the thousands of political parties in the Weimar republic, I'd be much
less surprised to find this Mr. C an avid supporter of one of the many "20
party members and only their mothers vote for them" ideologies that the Weimar
republic boasted.

------
grimmdude
This article seems relevant to Man in The High Castle.

------
batz
The essence of any totalitarian strategy is to seize some resources, invent a
necessarily preposterous myth, then in exchange for demonstrating belief in
the myth, re-distribute the resources arbitrarily among a minority of people
who are easily replaceable and know it. The secret is to then reward people
from the majority for denouncing and replacing members of the minority for not
being zealous enough, so that they can elevate themselves through commitment
to the myth. This has the self-policing effect of keeping everyone in line.

So long as you can keep those resources coming to your ruling coalition of
highly replaceable idiots, you are golden. Read Smith and DeMesquita's
"Dictator's Handbook" for details of how this works.

It doesn't matter whether that myth is of a 3000 year reign, the supreme right
of a proletariat, the divinity of leader, that my golf handicap includes 11
holes in one, the revolution, or even that my particular tribe or ethnic group
is morally superior to your tribe or ethnic group. It's all the same shit.

What people don't talk about is how these assholes seize power. It's through
charismatic promises of future rewards to people who think they have nothing.
They appeal to the greed and impulsiveness of the poor, it's a straight short
con.

The nuanced part is how you get current status quo supporters to switch sides
and provide their support to the challenger. They do this with a second
message that triggers the middling man's sense of loss aversion. This is just
posing a credible prisoners dilemma in which if moderates and supporters
defect now, they get to keep their social position, but if they hold out, they
will lose everything.

Arguably, this model of political polarization shows how ISIS works, how
feminism annexed academia, why Trump is popular, why Occupy failed but why BLM
could grow exponentially.

Nazi's were repugnant, but history would show that being repugnant is likely
more indicative of political success than failure.

~~~
cstross
_how feminism annexed academia ... why Occupy failed but why BLM could grow
exponentially_

No axes to grind here, hmm?

(Hint: there's a _huge_ difference between civil rights movements -- those
demanding equal respect -- and the fulminations of the privileged who think
life's a zero-sum game and anyone else making up ground means that they're
losing out. Alas, you don't seem to get it.)

~~~
batz
Actually, I make an effort to be sufficiently even handed that only a
committed partisan could take offense.

~~~
pyre
Reading what you wrote, and this comment seems to translate as:

> I make an effort to insult everyone therefore if _anyone_ is insulted they
> _must_ be a zealot. It's certainly not possible for reasonable people to
> take offence to an insult so long as I _also_ insult the "other side" of the
> debate.

I'm not entirely sure that the "social math" you're attempting to use here
actually works in real life.

But to digress further, even _if_ this "social math" worked out, statements
like "Trump is popular" are not necessarily contested even by people that
disagree with Trump, while statement like "feminism annexed academia" is a
much more inflammatory and contested statement.

~~~
batz
Inflammatory, by that do you mean, _problematic_ , citizen?

It's not my social math, it's from the book I mentioned in the original post.
There is a political calculus to power, and there are some good game theory
models of it. It would be hard to deny that academia has seen a sea change in
political thinking in the last 20 years (unless we've always been at war with
eurasia), just as against all reason and sense, Trump has managed to become a
contender. Stuff changes. There are models to describe some of it. Sorry if I
tipped a sacred cow. I thought this was hacker news not reddit.

~~~
pyre
My "social math" comment was directed at this comment that you made:

> I make an effort to be sufficiently even handed that only a committed
> partisan could take offense

not at attacking the contents of the book that you are discussing in your
original post. I have not read that book, therefore I am not on sufficient
ground to debate its contents.

On the other hand, your idea that you have been "sufficiently even handed"
requires more explanation. From what I've read from you in this comment
thread, that appears to mean, "I've made comments that people all over the
political spectrum might not like, therefore somehow upsetting someone on the
'left' _and_ someone on the 'right' balances out to upsetting no one.
Therefore, only extremely committed zealots will be upset by my comments."
This is the "social math" that does not work.

> Sorry if I tipped a sacred cow. I thought this was hacker news not reddit.

I could direct the same comment at you. Making comments like this is meant to
put me on the defensive. You're claiming that I'm acting like an "irrational
Redditor" rather than a "intelligent HN reader." Ending all of your comments
with the equivalent of, "I'm just saying the truth that no one wants to hear"
gives you more in common with Trump that you may like to admit.

------
tamana
Colorful and imaginative writing. 75 years on, did it ever show to have a
kernel of truth? It reads like a Just So Story that lets anyone call anyone
else a Nazi in spirit.

I'e bet there are plenty of As to Es on both side of the Nazi divide.

