
Who Goes Nazi? (1941) - nkurz
https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/?single=1
======
krapp
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415)

------
stcredzero
_Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain
type of mind._

It's not Nazism that should occupy the thoughts of intellectuals. It's the
underlying psychology of the in-group/out-grouping and jingoism. There's
nothing qualitatively exceptional about Nazis. They were just one point in a
spectrum of behavior within the range of possible human behaviors. The
challenge to society is that society itself is made out of the psychology of
human group cohesion. We are immersed in such psychology, and taught almost
from birth to regard such things as akin to ground truth.

As 21st century intellectuals, we need even more to be self-aware of how such
group psychology distorts our perception of reality.

~~~
pjlegato
What you propose is inherently paradoxical and irrational.

You say people (or intellectuals, at least) should make a conscious effort to
avoid the psychology and biases of in-group/out-grouping.

But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those
of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do
in-group and out-group."

You advocate for everyone to join your in-group of "non-in-groupers," and
condemn the out-groupers, those not aligned with your prescription for correct
behavior -- exactly as all in-groupers have done before you, and precisely
what you claim to be deploring.

It is thus a wholly and profoundly self-contradictory proposition, which
cannot be admitted as logical or rational.

~~~
hawkfish
_But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those
of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do
in-group and out-group."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29)

 _You advocate for everyone to join your in-group of "non-in-groupers," and
condemn the out-groupers, those not aligned with your prescription for correct
behavior -- exactly as all in-groupers have done before you, and precisely
what you claim to be deploring._

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

 _It is thus a wholly and profoundly self-contradictory proposition, which
cannot be admitted as logical or rational._

Ironically, this conclusion rests on nothing but logical fallacies.

~~~
pjlegato
The parent comment proposes that Nazis as such are not the actual problem,
that Nazis are merely an extreme case of typical in-group/out-group behavior,
and that "21st century intellectuals" need to avoid all the badness of Nazis
by being more aware of their own in-group biases.

The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a
restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more
aware of their in-grouping bias.

Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century
intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into
"those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of
their in-group bias." The point I made follows even more strongly from the
explicit qualification of "21st century intellectuals": the original post is
stating directly that 21st century intellectuals ought to act a certain
desired way -- that is, forming an in-group with a certain sociall prescribed
norm of belief. It indeed follows from this that not only all people who do
not adhere to the "be aware of your in-group bias" proposal, but indeed all
people who are not intellectuals, form an out-group.

I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the
original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.

~~~
hawkfish
_' The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a
restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more
aware of their in-grouping bias.'_

No, it isn't a restatement. You make the (new) claim that "being more aware of
one's own bias" creates another in-group, but it _does not follow_ that this
is your opponents position. You made no argument as to _why_ this would be the
case, either.

 _' Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century
intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into
"those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of
their in-group bias."'_

This is _your_ claim. Even if it was accepted (which I will do for the sake of
argument), you did not make an argument on how this logically invalidates the
original proposition, which merely calls for awareness and _doesn 't_ claim
that in-grouping _itself_ is to be avoided, or that it is avoidable at all.
Your proposed in-group that mandates awareness of (various) in-group biases
would _also_ call for awareness about its own biases. This is not paradoxical,
at all.

 _' I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the
original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.'_

It does not. In your "straw man", you misrepresent your opponents view in
quite strong terms, accusing them of "condemning" those who do not belong to
an in-group that _you_ (not your opponent) defined. This accusation holds no
ground whatsoever.

------
EGreg
Nazism, Communism, Islamism. What makes mind viruses take control of societies
and use human hosts to battle other mind viruses in an effort to build an
organization to propagate the ideas?

I view it in an epidemiological context. Yes, there is a certain
susceptibility in the human mind, but we have much bigger second-order effects
when it comes to groups of people, and organizations. Our own ideology is
Liberal Democracy, which is more tolerant of multiculturalism. But the
"psychology of the masses" can be a dangerous thing. It can cause a flint
(three teenagers being kidnapped in West Bank) to escalate into a flame (war
in Gaza where 1500 civilians die), or via escalating reprisals where
"refugees" rape women and mobs of hooligans raid peaceful refugees, and so
forth.

Human life is often lost in the greatest amounts when one ideology is
"completing its revolution". Whether it is the Holodomor or China's Three
Terrible Years man made famines, or the persecution of Falun Gong, the rights
of human beings take a backseat to ideology. That's what I find to be most
dangerous politically.

Although I fear actual viruses, bacteria, overpopulation and world-ending
events more, an inflexible ideology + power is a pretty terrible combination.

------
vlunkr
Very interesting to hear this from a contempory standpoint. Nazis as so often
portrayed as purely evil that it's difficult to think of them as real people
that willingly accepted that way of thinking.

~~~
manachar
This is my biggest beef with most WWII movies/games. They most horrifying
aspect of Nazis, Fascists, and tyrants is that they're made up and supported
by real people. People with loved ones just trying to get by in the world.

Given the right conditions, it genuinely seems that any culture or peoples
could be turned into a place where concentration camps, genocide, and
oppression are just part of making the trains run on time.

~~~
sdrothrock
The Wave, a novel[1] and film[2] explores this idea and is great
reading/watching. I really wish it were part of high school English or history
classes since it provides some real insight into how these kinds of movements
start -- once you've seen it, you can almost recognize the signs anywhere,
even in yourself, as long as you keep an open mind.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_\(novel\))

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(2008_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_\(2008_film\))

------
carsongross
"The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet
lands only in Europe."

\--Tom Wolfe

------
friendstock
Who goes Trump?

------
andrewclunn
The anti-Nazi propaganda always reads so much like the pro-Nazi propaganda.
Good, honest, beautiful, happy people think like this...

~~~
meowface
Did you actually read the article? I wouldn't call it propaganda.

~~~
rquantz
It is deeply conservative, possibly even royalist. Do you think propaganda has
to be unsubtle? This is just appealing to a different audience than Rosie the
Riveter.

------
iofj
Dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415)

TLDR: anyone that is either poor and afraid of communism or is driven by
social acceptance (ie. nearly everyone) would be strongly tempted to join the
nazis. Anyone poor who isn't stupid would be "purged", but would likely still
join.

------
aksquestions
Even when specifically attempting to refrain from doing so, it's impossible to
speak of Nazi Germany without resorting to simplifying them into cartoon evil
or as a moral object lesson from which to derive meaningful instruction and
insight. The terrible truth is they were entirely normal people who followed
an entirely normal path of self-interest. There is nothing remarkable about
them and no special insight into human nature to be learned. The Nazis were a
reaction against the rise of Marxist Communism, a terrifying spectre already
responsible for genocide at the time of the party's founding, and with whom
many party members had engaged with directly during the turmoil after WWI.

That Marxist Communism had taken hold of Russia largely through the efforts of
outsiders was not lost on the Nazis and their distrust and fear of anyone not
truly German was entirely sensible. That among these outsiders Jews played an
inordinately large role was a commonly understood meme of the day. (And when
looking at the Bolshevik leadership and financial backers, it is an
unassailable fact, though it's currently heresy to say so.) German Jews during
the party's rise were also an inordinately powerful group in German industry,
finance, and media. Given the context, it was not irrational to seek to remove
a minority group with questionable loyalties from such positions and prevent
them from retaking them.

Throw in a Weimar period of social degeneracy and economic upheaval along with
the rest of the world laying blame upon your people as being solely
responsible for one of the greatest calamities experienced by western
civilization and a nationalistic party that emphasized the inherent strength
and value of the nation's ethnic stock was exactly what the German people
needed to regain their dignity. The only lesson to be learned from the Nazis
is that war should be avoided at all costs. The corollary being that if you
are to fight a war, make sure you will prevail else your nation will be raped
and split up and your people will be treated for the next century as though
they were the greatest evil that has ever been visited upon the Earth. (And no
one will learn anything from it.)

~~~
meowface
It's not too often I see /pol/-speak (or /pol/ usernames) on HN.

>German Jews during the party's rise were also an inordinately powerful group
in German industry, finance, and media.

The German Communist Party had a very low percentage of Jewish membership. The
Weimar KPD was only 0.7% Jewish in 1927. At the end of the Weimar republic,
only about 1.5% of all officers were Jewish, and only one of the leaders was
Jewish (Heinz Neumann). A year later, Hitler gained power, and there were no
longer any Jewish leaders of the party.

Judeo-Bolshevism is a myth no matter how you look at it. There is sometimes a
disproportionate amount of Jewish representation in certain movements around
the world, but these can be explained by factors other than conspiracy.

You could say that Nazism was, in part, a reaction to the spread of communism.
But it was an irrational overreaction, and also partly a pretext for Hitler's
overall racial and societal ideals. Hitler would have still wanted to
implement much of his plans even if communism never existed in the East. He
just would have been likely to rise to power.

~~~
aksquestions
The central role Jews played in the ideological formation and implementation
of Bolshevism cannot be denied. Hand-waving about a "conspiracy theory" will
not change the ethnicity of Lenin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Sokolnikov, or Zinoviev
(five of the seven members of the first Politburo) nor that of Sverdlov (first
Communist party leader and progenitor of the Red Terror) nor of the many Jews
who rushed to join the Cheka (the majority in certain regions) to carry out
atrocities against the Russian and then Soviet populace. (Not to mention the
significance of, oh, Marx.) The financial contribution of financiers like
Jacob Schiff, likely though it seems, is the only aspect that lies in the
realm of the unproven. Referring to those who point out the facts as
"conspiracy theorists" is a disingenuous response solely intended to deflect
attention from reality and again marginalize and dismiss the Nazis as
"irrational" moustache-twirling villains. You don't have to prove a
"conspiracy" among the participants every time you apprehend a trend among a
given population group for the trend to be true in a heuristic sense.

~~~
meowface
I actually think it is fair to portray nearly all of the Nazi and Soviet
leadership as villains. Just for somewhat different reasons.

>You don't have to prove a "conspiracy" among the participants every time you
apprehend a trend among a given population group for the trend to be true in a
heuristic sense.

Sure you do. Listing facts like these is only done because it comes with
implicit accusations about intent and/or genetic flaws. Also, ad hominem
though it may be, I am 99% certain you support Hitler and sing his praises on
places like /pol/.

It is true that many of the initial leaders in the Bolshevik movement were
Jewish and the Cheka had heavy Jewish representation for a while (though this
was greatly reduced under Stalin). However, presenting those facts alone does
not convey the full picture. For example, the fact that many Jews were killed
by the Bolsheviks, sometimes by ethnic Russiand and sometimes by other ethnic
Jews. Or that pretty much none of the Jewish founders identified with Judaism
ethnically or religiously and refused to abide by Jewish traditions, instead
favoring a secular united philosophy with the rest of the country).

The only reason to present those facts as you have is to imply either some
sort of conspiracy, or some sort of inherent moral failing within all Jews
which the Nazis justifiably "defended themselves" from.

