Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Everything new is old again, cont.

Who Goes Nazi?  (from Harper’s 1941 and reprinted 2012; h/t Blake)

By Dorothy Thompson

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis. It is preposterous to think that they are divided by any racial characteristics. Germans may be more susceptible to Nazism than most people, but I doubt it. Jews are barred out, but it is an arbitrary ruling. I know lots of Jews who are born Nazis and many others who would heil Hitler tomorrow morning if given a chance. There are Jews who have repudiated their own ancestors in order to become “Honorary Aryans and Nazis”; there are full-blooded Jews who have enthusiastically entered Hitler’s secret service. Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind.

— cough cough Soros cough cough.

[…]

Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected. At any rate, let us look round the room.

The gentleman standing beside the fireplace with an almost untouched glass of whiskey beside him on the mantelpiece is Mr. A, a descendant of one of the great American families. There has never been an American Blue Book without several persons of his surname in it. He is poor and earns his living as an editor. He has had a classical education, has a sound and cultivated taste in literature, painting, and music; has not a touch of snobbery in him; is full of humor, courtesy, and wit. He was a lieutenant in the World War, is a Republican in politics, but voted twice for Roosevelt, last time for Willkie. He is modest, not particularly brilliant, a staunch friend, and a man who greatly enjoys the company of pretty and witty women. His wife, whom he adored, is dead, and he will never remarry.

He has never attracted any attention because of outstanding bravery. But I will put my hand in the fire that nothing on earth could ever make him a Nazi. He would greatly dislike fighting them, but they could never convert him. . . . Why not?

Beside him stands Mr. B, a man of his own class, graduate of the same preparatory school and university, rich, a sportsman, owner of a famous racing stable, vice-president of a bank, married to a well-known society belle. He is a good fellow and extremely popular. But if America were going Nazi he would certainly join up, and early. Why? . . . Why the one and not the other?

Mr. A has a life that is established according to a certain form of personal behavior. Although he has no money, his unostentatious distinction and education have always assured him a position. He has never been engaged in sharp competition. He is a free man. I doubt whether ever in his life he has done anything he did not want to do or anything that was against his code. Nazism wouldn’t fit in with his standards and he has never become accustomed to making concessions.

Mr. B has risen beyond his real abilities by virtue of health, good looks, and being a good mixer. He married for money and he has done lots of other things for money. His code is not his own; it is that of his class—no worse, no better, He fits easily into whatever pattern is successful. That is his sole measure of value—success. Nazism as a minority movement would not attract him. As a movement likely to attain power, it would.

The saturnine man over there talking with a lovely French emigree is already a Nazi. Mr. C is a brilliant and embittered intellectual. He was a poor white-trash Southern boy, a scholarship student at two universities where he took all the scholastic honors but was never invited to join a fraternity. His brilliant gifts won for him successively government positions, partnership in a prominent law firm, and eventually a highly paid job as a Wall Street adviser. He has always moved among important people and always been socially on the periphery. His colleagues have admired his brains and exploited them, but they have seldom invited him—or his wife—to dinner.

He is a snob, loathing his own snobbery. He despises the men about him—he despises, for instance, Mr. B—because he knows that what he has had to achieve by relentless work men like B have won by knowing the right people. But his contempt is inextricably mingled with envy. Even more than he hates the class into which he has insecurely risen, does he hate the people from whom he came. He hates his mother and his father for being his parents. He loathes everything that reminds him of his origins and his humiliations. He is bitterly anti-Semitic because the social insecurity of the Jews reminds him of his own psychological insecurity.

Pity he has utterly erased from his nature, and joy he has never known. He has an ambition, bitter and burning. It is to rise to such an eminence that no one can ever again humiliate him. Not to rule but to be the secret ruler, pulling the strings of puppets created by his brains. Already some of them are talking his language—though they have never met him.

There he sits: he talks awkwardly rather than glibly; he is courteous. He commands a distant and cold respect. But he is a very dangerous man. Were he primitive and brutal he would be a criminal—a murderer. But he is subtle and cruel. He would rise high in a Nazi regime. It would need men just like him—intellectual and ruthless. But Mr. C is not a born Nazi. 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. He would laugh to see heads roll.

I think young D over there is the only born Nazi in the room. Young D is the spoiled only son of a doting mother. He has never been crossed in his life. 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.

Mrs. E would go Nazi as sure as you are born. That statement surprises you? Mrs. E seems so sweet, so clinging, so cowed. She is. She is a masochist. She is married to a man who never ceases to humiliate her, to lord it over her, to treat her with less consideration than he does his dogs. He is a prominent scientist, and Mrs. E, who married him very young, has persuaded herself that he is a genius, and that there is something of superior womanliness in her utter lack of pride, in her doglike devotion. She speaks disapprovingly of other “masculine” or insufficiently devoted wives. Her husband, however, is bored to death with her. He neglects her completely and she is looking for someone else before whom to pour her ecstatic self-abasement. She will titillate with pleased excitement to the first popular hero who proclaims the basic subordination of women.

On the other hand, Mrs. F would never go Nazi. She is the most popular woman in the room, handsome, gay, witty, and full of the warmest emotion. She was a popular actress ten years ago; married very happily; promptly had four children in a row; has a charming house, is not rich but has no money cares, has never cut herself off from her own happy-go-lucky profession, and is full of sound health and sound common sense. All men try to make love to her; she laughs at them all, and her husband is amused. She has stood on her own feet since she was a child, she has enormously helped her husband’s career (he is a lawyer), she would ornament any drawing-room in any capital, and she is as American as ice cream and cake.

II

How about the butler who is passing the drinks? I look at James with amused eyes. James is safe. James has been butler to the ‘ighest aristocracy, considers all Nazis parvenus and communists, and has a very good sense for “people of quality.” He serves the quiet editor with that friendly air of equality which good servants always show toward those they consider good enough to serve, and he serves the horsy gent stiffly and coldly.

Bill, the grandson of the chauffeur, is helping serve to-night. He is a product of a Bronx public school and high school, and works at night like this to help himself through City College, where he is studying engineering. He is a “proletarian,” though you’d never guess it if you saw him without that white coat. He plays a crack game of tennis—has been a tennis tutor in summer resorts—swims superbly, gets straight A’s in his classes, and thinks America is okay and don’t let anybody say it isn’t. He had a brief period of Youth Congress communism, but it was like the measles. He was not taken in the draft because his eyes are not good enough, but he wants to design airplanes, “like Sikorsky.” He thinks Lindbergh is “just another pilot with a build-up and a rich wife” and that he is “always talking down America, like how we couldn’t lick Hitler if we wanted to.” At this point Bill snorts.

Mr. G is a very intellectual young man who was an infant prodigy. He has been concerned with general ideas since the age of ten and has one of those minds that can scintillatingly rationalize everything. I have known him for ten years and in that time have heard him enthusiastically explain Marx, social credit, technocracy, Keynesian economics, Chestertonian distributism, and everything else one can imagine. Mr. G will never be a Nazi, because he will never be anything. His brain operates quite apart from the rest of his apparatus. He will certainly be able, however, fully to explain and apologize for Nazism if it ever comes along. But Mr. G is always a “deviationist.” When he played with communism he was a Trotskyist; when he talked of Keynes it was to suggest improvement; Chesterton’s economic ideas were all right but he was too bound to Catholic philosophy. So we may be sure that Mr. G would be a Nazi with purse-lipped qualifications. He would certainly be purged.

H is an historian and biographer. He is American of Dutch ancestry born and reared in the Middle West. He has been in love with America all his life. He can recite whole chapters of Thoreau and volumes of American poetry, from Emerson to Steve Benet. He knows Jefferson’s letters, Hamilton’s papers, Lincoln’s speeches. He is a collector of early American furniture, lives in New England, runs a farm for a hobby and doesn’t lose much money on it, and loathes parties like this one. He has a ribald and manly sense of humor, is unconventional and lost a college professorship because of a love affair. Afterward he married the lady and has lived happily ever afterward as the wages of sin.

H has never doubted his own authentic Americanism for one instant. This is his country, and he knows it from Acadia to Zenith. His ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War and in all the wars since. He is certainly an intellectual, but an intellectual smelling slightly of cow barns and damp tweeds. He is the most good-natured and genial man alive, but if anyone ever tries to make this country over into an imitation of Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, or Petain’s systems H will grab a gun and fight. Though H’s liberalism will not permit him to say it, it is his secret conviction that nobody whose ancestors have not been in this country since before the Civil War really understands America or would really fight for it against Nazism or any other foreign ism in a showdown.

But H is wrong. There is one other person in the room who would fight alongside H and he is not even an American citizen. He is a young German emigre, whom I brought along to the party. The people in the room look at him rather askance because he is so Germanic, so very blond-haired, so very blue-eyed, so tanned that somehow you expect him to be wearing shorts. He looks like the model of a Nazi. His English is flawed—he learned it only five years ago. He comes from an old East Prussian family; he was a member of the post-war Youth Movement and afterward of the Republican “Reichsbanner.” All his German friends went Nazi—without exception. He hiked to Switzerland penniless, there pursued his studies in New Testament Greek, sat under the great Protestant theologian, Karl Barth, came to America through the assistance of an American friend whom he had met in a university, got a job teaching the classics in a fashionable private school; quit, and is working now in an airplane factory—working on the night shift to make planes to send to Britain to defeat Germany. He has devoured volumes of American history, knows Whitman by heart, wonders why so few Americans have ever really read the Federalist papers, believes in the United States of Europe, the Union of the English-speaking world, and the coming democratic revolution all over the earth. He believes that America is the country of Creative Evolution once it shakes off its middle-class complacency, its bureaucratized industry, its tentacle-like and spreading government, and sets itself innerly free.

The people in the room think he is not an American, but he is more American than almost any of them. He has discovered America and his spirit is the spirit of the pioneers. He is furious with America because it does not realize its strength and beauty and power. He talks about the workmen in the factory where he is employed. . . . He took the job “in order to understand the real America.” He thinks the men are wonderful. “Why don’t you American in- tellectuals ever get to them; talk to them?”

I grin bitterly to myself, thinking that if we ever got into war with the Nazis he would probably be interned, while Mr. B and Mr. G and Mrs. E would be spreading defeatism at all such parties as this one. “Of course I don’t like Hitler but . . .”

Mr. J over there is a Jew. Mr. J is a very important man. He is immensely rich—he has made a fortune through a dozen directorates in various companies, through a fabulous marriage, through a speculative flair, and through a native gift for money and a native love of power. He is intelligent and arrogant. He seldom associates with Jews. He deplores any mention of the “Jewish question.” He believes that Hitler “should not be judged from the standpoint of anti-Semitism.” He thinks that “the Jews should be reserved on all political questions.” He considers Roosevelt “an enemy of business.” He thinks “It was a serious blow to the Jews that Frankfurter should have been appointed to the Supreme Court.”

The saturnine Mr. C—the real Nazi in the room—engages him in a flatteringly attentive conversation. Mr. J agrees with Mr. C wholly. Mr. J is definitely attracted by Mr. C. He goes out of his way to ask his name—they have never met before. “A very intelligent man.”

Mr. K contemplates the scene with a sad humor in his expressive eyes. Mr. K is also a Jew. Mr. K is a Jew from the South. He speaks with a Southern drawl. He tells inimitable stories. Ten years ago he owned a very successful business that he had built up from scratch. He sold it for a handsome price, settled his indigent relatives in business, and now enjoys an income for himself of about fifty dollars a week. At forty he began to write articles about odd and out-of-the-way places in American life. A bachelor, and a sad man who makes everybody laugh, he travels continually, knows America from a thousand different facets, and loves it in a quiet, deep, unostentatious way. He is a great friend of H, the biographer. Like H, his ancestors have been in this country since long before the Civil War. He is attracted to the young German. By and by they are together in the drawing-room. The impeccable gentleman of New England, the country-man—intellectual of the Middle West, the happy woman whom the gods love, the young German, the quiet, poised Jew from the South. And over on the other side are the others.

Mr. L has just come in. Mr. L is a lion these days. My hostess was all of a dither when she told me on the telephone, “ . . . and L is coming. You know it’s dreadfully hard to get him.” L is a very powerful labor leader. “My dear, he is a man of the people, but really fascinating.“ L is a man of the people and just exactly as fascinating as my horsy, bank vice-president, on-the-make acquaintance over there, and for the same reasons and in the same way. L makes speeches about the “third of the nation,” and L has made a darned good thing for himself out of championing the oppressed. He has the best car of anyone in this room; salary means nothing to him because he lives on an expense account. He agrees with the very largest and most powerful industrialists in the country that it is the business of the strong to boss the weak, and he has made collective bargaining into a legal compulsion to appoint him or his henchmen as “labor’s” agents, with the power to tax pay envelopes and do what they please with the money. L is the strongest natural-born Nazi in this room. Mr. B regards him with contempt tempered by hatred. Mr. B will use him. L is already parroting B’s speeches. He has the brains of Neanderthal man, but he has an infallible instinct for power. In private conversation he denounces the Jews as “parasites.” No one has ever asked him what are the creative functions of a highly paid agent, who takes a percentage off the labor of millions of men, and distributes it where and as it may add to his own political power.

III

It’s fun—a macabre sort of fun—this parlor game of “Who Goes Nazi?” And it simplifies things—asking the question in regard to specific personalities.

Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. They may be the gentle philosopher whose name is in the Blue Book, or Bill from City College to whom democracy gave a chance to design airplanes—you’ll never make Nazis out of them. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi. Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.

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. It’s an amusing game. Try it at the next big party you go to.

It is an amusing game, isn’t it? But what it needs is a final lightning round.

Quick: name as many would-be Nazis as you can in 30 seconds or less. And yes, you can all have Sean Penn as a freebie.

Ready? GO!

34 Replies to “Everything new is old again, cont.”

  1. Drumwaster says:

    Bill Maher
    Michael Moore
    the entirety of MSNBC’s payroll

  2. Blake says:

    But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

    Barack Obama;
    Frustrated and humiliated intellectual: Check.
    Spoiled son: check
    Labor Tyrant: Check
    Achieved success by going with the wind: Check.

    And according to Mrs. Parker, one only needs to meet one of the criteria in order to go Nazi.

  3. cranky-d says:

    Obama doesn’t need to “go” Nazi, IYKWIMAITYD.

    Al Sharpton
    Jesse Jackson
    Al Gore
    Chuck Schumer
    Barney Frank

    Okay, I ran out of my 30 seconds.

  4. palaeomerus says:

    I dunno about this. It seems like looking for the crypto nazis and proto-nazis, and quasi-nazis, and wanna be nazis and such is both futile and feeds the part of the mind that is likely to whisper in your ear that “Hey, those nazi’s really have a lot of momentum…maybe I should sign one of those clipboards and go nazi too. They are having a thing at the Red Lion Ballroom tomorrow night…a meet and greet.”

    I think I can see it as “would join a reactionary potentially harmful movement that stroked the hair just right or on a bad day” or ” secretly wants a philosopher king to order them to burn people they frown at in a wicker man and eventually order some of his comrades burned as well. ” Maybe even ” can justify anything in pursuit of an ideal transhuman future because they love humanity but hate people” would work.

    This seems like the ill fitting dichotomous prongs of “nazi-susceptible vs. nice people” being used about the way that Jim Moran uses “secretly racist vs. authentic ethnic minority who is down for the struggle and oppressed even if they do own a helicopter and sell out rap concerts.”

  5. dicentra says:

    All of the diarists at DKos
    Anyone with a no H8 ribbon on their Twitter avatar
    95% of University faculties
    95% of the MSM
    95% of “Muslim leaders”

  6. dicentra says:

    Spoiled son: check

    Likely sexually abused and abandoned by three parents—by his mother very, very deliberately.

    Not spoiled: heavily damaged, such that he never matured beyond the age of six, emotionally.

    Behaves spoiled, but isn’t.

  7. Darleen says:

    Amanda Marcotte, Laurie Penny
    Code Pink
    Trumka
    Harry Reid

    All these people, plus more, who lust for the whip.

  8. Blake says:

    The entire State Department.
    The EPA.
    The IRS.

  9. leigh says:

    Blake, Dorothy Thompson is the author of this piece, although Dorothy Parker is one of my favorites (even if she was a commie).

    Jeff, could you put about half of the original piece in a continue reading here thinger? It’s hard to read on a mobile device.

  10. LBascom says:

    Eric Holder.

    In essence Holder is proposing to set aside the constitutional protection against double jeopardy based on Zimmerman’s not having enough ancestors of color to send him to jail for the rest of his life for a crime for which a jury has already found him not guilty. These kind of legal considerations were last heard in deciding on how much Jewish blood one needed to warrant transportation to Auschwitz.

  11. LBascom says:

    Nazi? Hell…this’ll really leave a mark!

    Marco Rubio was our fresh-faced Hannah Montana, but after his shameful campaign of line blurring aimed at conservatives he’s now just a GOP Miley Cyrus rubbing on Chuck Schumer.

    Ouch!

  12. newrouter says:

    the rubes self identified as a rube

  13. McGehee says:

    Ms. Thompson apparently understands “niceness” differently than I. Perhaps in 1941 niceness was a less shallow virtue than I have always understood it — kindness is far deeper and more substantial, a trait of character rather than personality.

    Perhaps that’s what she means by “nice” when she says, “nice people don’t go Nazi.” If so, then I’ll agree with her. But I’ve known many an utter monster who was as nice as nice could be, without an ounce of kindness in them.

  14. leigh says:

    Oh, same here McGehee.

  15. LBascom says:

    nice
    [nahys]

    adjective, nic·er, nic·est.
    1.
    pleasing; agreeable; delightful: a nice visit.

    2.
    amiably pleasant; kind: They are always nice to strangers.

    3.
    characterized by, showing, or requiring great accuracy, precision, skill, tact, care, or delicacy: nice workmanship; a nice shot; a nice handling of a crisis.

    4.
    showing or indicating very small differences; minutely accurate, as instruments: a job that requires nice measurements.

    5.
    minute, fine, or subtle: a nice distinction

    Antonyms
    1. unpleasant. 2. unkind. 3. careless. 9. improper

  16. cranky-d says:

    Well, that settles it.

  17. LBascom says:

    * Usage note
    The semantic history of nice is quite varied, as the etymology and the obsolete senses attest, and any attempt to insist on only one of its present senses as correct will not be in keeping with the facts of actual usage. If any criticism is valid, it might be that the word is used too often and has become a cliché lacking the qualities of precision and intensity that are embodied in many of its synonyms

  18. newrouter says:

    did you know that nice is in france???? part of the surrender lobby i’m sure.

  19. LBascom says:

    Never mind newrouter, didn’t you hear? it’s settled

  20. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I think Thompson is using “nice” the same way Orwell used “decent.”

  21. McGehee says:

    All’s I know is, I won’t use “nice” (unironically) if I mean “kind.” I also won’t confuse being “nice” with being loving or compassionate.

    To me each word carries a connotation with more weight than other meanings listed in the dictionary, which helps to distinguish which word is more appropriate for a given usage context. Which helps me to express my intended meaning more effectively than might otherwise be the case.

    I won’t use “decimate” because to me it sounds like someone wants to say “devastate” but can’t remember the word. I won’t call our American political system “a democracy,” not because it’s untrue, but because it’s imprecise. Laxity in word choice when seeking to express serious ideas drives me up the wall (though I’ll rely on context and a decent respect for the intelligence of my readers, and not specify that it doesn’t drive me literally up a wall, or hasn’t yet).

    All that having been said, I share Ernst’s confidence that Thompson was not referring to the shallow virtue but to the deeper one I refuse to call by that name. That’s called respecting the author’s intent.

  22. sdferr says:

    Not nice?

    “Impeach Obama now, before he hurts himself.”

    Oh. Too late.

  23. serr8d says:

    I’m thinking ‘Nazism’ is a mindset, much like the TEA Party is a mindset. The descriptors will change, but you’ll still find individuals and organizations that will find some of their ideological framework…familiar ground. And, comfortable, like an old shoe.

    I present as evidence #OFA, #StopRush, and much of the current crop of far-Left @TheDemocrats treading very near some of the precepts that were once known as Nazism.

  24. serr8d says:

    Mr. A…

    Mr. A has a life that is established according to a certain form of personal behavior. Although he has no money, his unostentatious distinction and education have always assured him a position. He has never been engaged in sharp competition. He is a free man. I doubt whether ever in his life he has done anything he did not want to do or anything that was against his code. Nazism wouldn’t fit in with his standards and he has never become accustomed to making concessions. … His wife, whom he adored, is dead, and he will never remarry.

    I like this guy. Like an old shoe, really.

  25. leigh says:

    OT: Orangeman announces he is down with Presbo’s “limited” strike on Syria and will vote Yea.

  26. sdferr says:

    OT: Orangeman announces he is down with Presbo’s “limited” strike on Syria and will vote Yea.

    First off, we’ve got a thread dedicated to this question already. Second, taking the previously insufficient judgments of Speaker Boehner into account, how would this judgment be different or the same as he has evinced before now? Seems like a reasonably good guide to me.

    Vote no.

  27. leigh says:

    Sorry. I’ve been busy and didn’t know there was a thread for it.

  28. sdferr says:

    It’s useful information leigh and all to the good. Because it’s good, it deserves more prominence and not less. But it’s just my view that it may carry better weight in a thread dedicated to the subject is all — I don’t intend a rebuke by that.

  29. leigh says:

    It’s okay. I didn’t think you did. I was more chastising myself for my haste to spread the gloom.

  30. dicentra says:

    Hate to say it, but maybe ‘feets.

    Not one of the first, certainly, but if his pals convince him that not being Nazi is bigoted, he’s all in.

  31. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I won’t use “decimate” because to me it sounds like someone wants to say “devastate” but can’t remember the word.

    I’m all in favor of decimation if we force Congress to undergo it.

    Call it a national debt retirement fundraiser and make it a pay-per-view event.

  32. Slartibartfast says:

    I read that whole thing while mentally pronouncing “Nazi” just like Aldo Raine.

  33. leigh says:

    I could never be a Nazi. I could be a double-agent, though. The Nazis did have some snappy uniforms.

Comments are closed.