Tweet
Populism and Nazism
Ok my latest 
BNP 
thread but hell they deserve it. Decided to exercise the old grey matter and write an article to see if I am still physically capable of doing teh sentence thing. Probably full of grammatical, punctual and semantic errors, feel free to discuss those as well as the article itself... feedback is always good and apparently I hear talk of politics in these parts.... 
******
Populism and Nazism
By me
Often, it has been said that the British National Party, and their ilk on the far right, are Nazi parties. Certainly their history of racism, terrorism, anti-Semitism and thuggery greatly supports that view, but now they claim they are not, on the grounds that they do not worship Hitler and apparently have no hatred for Jews. Granted. However this is unsatisfactory for me as I aim to demonstrate. To me, concepts such as “Nazism” or “discrimination”, are not discrete terms applied in a blissfully naïve retrospect to horrendous periods of human history, they are instead continuous and contextual; applying in degrees and measures. To ascertain this in order to determine whether we can apply the definition “Nazi”, with its horrific potential and associated ruin, we need to boil down the concept into its constituent parts. The most obvious aspect, at least to me, being of Jewish descent, is the anti-Semitism.
Who can fail to be aware of the inordinate suffering and death of the holocaust, and the near-destruction of one of Europe’s most prodigious cultures? And yet, anti-Semitism is a specific term: a direct prejudice and contempt against Jews. If, contrary to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, we are to accept that Nazism is a wider notion with political and social ramifications instead of mere racism, then limiting the definition to anti-Semitism would be like saying that it is necessarily German. And yet there were people who identify themselves as Nazis, both then and now of other nationalities, from Europe and beyond.
The anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany seems to be dependent on circumstance; the convenient and latent prejudice in Europe against Jews at the time that climaxed through the likes of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and co. If Nazism was the engine for the realisation of this hatred, then what was it? Perhaps looking at the word itself may provide an answer. Nazi is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers Party – National Socialism. At last, a working definition! I shall explore this interplay of Nationalism and Socialism shortly, but perhaps now it would be prudent to identify the basic trait of the likes of the BNP, who claim not to be Nazi. Their nationalistic sentiment is unquestionable, but their frequent attacks on those on the “left” seem to confound one half of being a Nazi! The answer can be found in a famously distinctive characteristic of such parties; their tendency to populism.
The appeal to the masses; attempting to achieve power through popularity which is realised through policies and rhetoric that suit the popular mood, or whatever opinion happens to be fashionable is not a new concept, nor is it confined to those parties on the fringes. One might well say it goes hand-in-hand with democracy itself. Indeed, Populist elements can be identified in all political campaigns in the West, great and small. I can think of no better demonstration than the recent presidential election in the USA, where traditionally the party with the support of churchgoers is almost guaranteed to win. The Republican’s pretension of being “moral” through its denial of rights to gay people and women over their own relationships and bodies helped to secure those votes, and thus victory.
One sees those seeking to gain power through populism therefore railing against what is perceived to be elitist or aristocratic, we see rhetoric such as “the ivory tower intellectual elite”, “the left/liberal media”, “they think they know better than you” and the like. The drastic critique of the status quo is not, it should be noted, a characteristic solely of those on the far right. Forming the basis of Marxist principles also, it should be noted that such distinctions of “left” and “right” are merely economic, whereas political spectra are far more fluid. The anti-establishment rote is performed in an effort to appeal to a popular sentiment of oppression or subjugation of the masses at the hands of the elite, with the aim of validating the individual’s right to self-determination through that particular political party.
A similarly used and equally ancient tactic is simply to appeal to the fears and prejudices of the people. The psychologist Stanley Milgram notes that obedience “is a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct. (1)” With a large group of discontented people this is like a spark to a tinderbox; it does not always require a prominent individual to cause this fear. A self-sustaining anger and suspicion in many communities is sufficient, and then it is simply a question of obedience to popular opinion. We see this increasing in Britain with a moral panic regarding immigration. Urban legends, uninformed hysteria and a need for a moral “baddie” against which to band together and fight make it exceptionally easy for the populist to associate himself with the interests of the masses and identify an enemy in a different culture, race or even an alien philosophy.
In effect this reduces the collective “span of sympathy” of the group being courted by the Populist, such that an “us” and “them” mentality is formed. The group tendency then is to consider solely the perceived negativity or amorality of their victims and not the underlying narrative that caused that perception.
We might, thinking as individuals, stand a better chance of doing so, a chance that sadly decreases when one in authority says otherwise. The new enemy can then be made to appear somehow less human, less worthy, less good. Reveal that the baddies are attacking the goodies, often by amplifying a relatively small indiscretion (the more repugnant the better) into a perception of major deviancy or malevolence and the group will gladly fall into line behind their new popular champion, as revealed by the likes of Hermann Goering (2). This is the ultimate conclusion and aim of every populist.
Populism, along with democracy, is at first glance noble in appearance; governing for and by the people as a whole but the whole concept rests upon the assumption “that which is popular is correct”. This is a peculiar assumption and is indeed a fallacy (argumentum ad populum/bandwagon fallacy). It should be self-evident that this is so, the child bullied for not following a particular fashioned is comforted with this fact, and yet will grow up being enticed with the same canard. Semantic word games determine whether or not such a falsehood is taken seriously, and noble lies are built upon it.
Such lies are used in marketing; populism is, after all, empowering for the masses. It encourages unity in the face of something supposed to be an enemy. One could quite easily say that it encourages a kind of exclusive socialism. Certainly the egalitarianism with an anti-elite attitude, brutal utilitarianism never mind the good of the economy and a belief in the graciousness and superiority of the group are indicative of socialist tendencies. Further to this is almost an extension of the witch-hunt vigilante morality described earlier, as a conclusion of the utilitarianism a totalitarian attribute is fostered for all. Never mind the sufferings that can be inflicted on those unlucky enough to be the victims of the populist, people themselves can be manipulated into happily surrendering their liberties when they feel threatened, as described by the prophetic Herr Goering. That the state must come before the individual is a common thread in totalitarian and extreme socialist governments and that leads onto nationalism, the second component of Nazism.
It should be evident thus far, and from history, how populism leads to nationalism. After all, if a populist claims as he must that he represents the needs of the people, the logical group for him to appeal to is that with overt patriotism. Of course there are those who are not so easily seduced but no matter, obedience always comes after the application of a big enough stick. Fault lines of socio-economic class are insufficient if a populist is to have a greater appeal, for the less understanding one group has of another, the less “local” the neighbour, the easier it is for people to think it an enemy. The artificial boundaries of trade and economy become rigid and prescriptive to the masses, the fluidic boundaries of culture become dogmatic and natural boundaries of geography and a person’s appearance become hailed as a superior island in an ocean of opportunists and barbarians.
This nationalism is another fallacy; that “it is sweet and proper to die for one’s country” to quote the Roman poet Horace, seems absurd to me when that country is nothing more than a manmade political entity, a geographic location and a culture that changes every day without need of a single death or blinded eye. Nationalists respond to this by claiming that it is reasonable to wish to defend and fight for ones you love; family and friends for instance and with that I have no contention. However to go to say that they love their country and culture and their brethren within seems nonsensical. Unless one has knowledge of everyone, how is it possible to love them - to wish to go to such extremes, and how more so than one who happens to be on the other side of one of those artificial boundaries?
One should note an interesting irony in the people and those who would be their popular leaders. The leaders, or those with the loudest voices, are able to wield power by changing peoples’ opinion, yet their power is limited by that opinion. No matter the style of government, an executive can only go so far without the support of the people. In which case one should not differentiate between those in power and the people themselves, they are the same entity, it is merely incidental who is trusted as the leader. When the die is thrown, whatsoever face is drawn is still a part of the die. Thanks to human nature as previously discussed, the two cannot function without each other, they are an organism. Perhaps then one face in six is the Nazi face, proportional to the degree of populism.
It can be seen here that Nationalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive. Through the device of populism, Nazism perpetuates itself by distinguishing between groups and ultimately nations; appealing to patriotism within a group to bond it cohesively which manifests itself in socialism, but whose zealous conclusion is somewhat more communistic. We see this in the history of Nazi Germany. Ignore subsidiary economic differences, and Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia bear an uncanny resemblance! Individual freedoms are limited in favour of totalitarianism, groups deemed enemies of the state are ruthlessly persecuted and the state exercises a tight control of propaganda in order to manipulate the population. Socialism married to nationalism has another disturbing consequence. To consider other groups to be attacking your own, and that yours is worth defending, requires that those groups in what is purported to be their essence, are inferior to your own. In relative terms, this means that the populist purports his group to be superior, breeding national superiority, cultural hegemony and racial supremacy. The consequences of these are obvious, frightening, and proven.
So what does all of this mean? Firstly, it proves that the BNP et al. are, despite their protestations, Nazis. Undoubtedly these claims to the contrary are an effort to appear respectable and present a civilised façade, underneath which their members’ belligerence is cloaked until, heaven forbid, they come to power and realise their barbarism. It shows that Nazism is not a German issue, nor a Jewish issue, though National Socialism should never be allowed to escape the guilt for the iniquity of the Holocaust. It is a weapon, though its target changes with the times.
It shows that National Socialism is disturbingly human, deeply rooted in human nature and society, waiting to realise itself should the situation arise. Running in symbiosis between people and leaders, and patriotism and collectivism it relies on and manipulates our fundamental fears and insecurities, as well as the dangerous situation that invariably occurs when stupid people form large groups. It also shows that political freedoms in society are very much a double-edged sword; democracy has the potential to become a slippery slope to Nazism, seen in the failings of the Weimar Republic (in the author’s opinion, the most perfect democracy seen thus far in World history) which lead to the rise of Hitler.
How does one ensure that Nazism and its associated horrors can never be allowed to rise to power again, in whatever manifestation it may take? Resorting to the tactics of intimidation and totalitarianism in order to prevent such a thing is hypocritical and unbecoming of a society that claims to be civilised and just. No, all it requires is vigilance. Those the BNP love so much to vilify, the “ivory tower intellectuals”: historians, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, are the ones best placed to understand this threat from within ourselves, and education - understanding of Nazism will go some way to prevent people being enticed by it. We must also stop teaching children that it started with the Treaty of Versailles and died in 1945, and stop turning the recognised faces of it into folk devils. That belies the very humanity of Nazism, a potential that exists within all of us. Denial of it, either through fear or an effort to defend the sensibilities of those that suffered by it to my mind is a dangerous route to take.
Having said that, special mention must be made of its most long-suffering victims, the Jews. A people who have suffered long and hard and the hands of Nazism are, it is reasonable to say, the ones who must take the lead in being vigilant against it. This will post a difficult challenge for Jewish nationalists; those who claim that Judaism is inextricably linked with Zionism are making a hypocritical error in my opinion that, instead of honouring the suffering of the holocaust, will (or perhaps already has) serve to repeat it.
Will this vigilance happen? Will the tragedy of Nazism be repeated? Perhaps the answer to the second question depends on the answer to the first.
Refs.
(1) http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html
(2) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring
BNP thread but hell they deserve it. Decided to exercise the old grey matter and write an article to see if I am still physically capable of doing teh sentence thing. Probably full of grammatical, punctual and semantic errors, feel free to discuss those as well as the article itself... feedback is always good and apparently I hear talk of politics in these parts.... ******
Populism and Nazism
By me
Often, it has been said that the British National Party, and their ilk on the far right, are Nazi parties. Certainly their history of racism, terrorism, anti-Semitism and thuggery greatly supports that view, but now they claim they are not, on the grounds that they do not worship Hitler and apparently have no hatred for Jews. Granted. However this is unsatisfactory for me as I aim to demonstrate. To me, concepts such as “Nazism” or “discrimination”, are not discrete terms applied in a blissfully naïve retrospect to horrendous periods of human history, they are instead continuous and contextual; applying in degrees and measures. To ascertain this in order to determine whether we can apply the definition “Nazi”, with its horrific potential and associated ruin, we need to boil down the concept into its constituent parts. The most obvious aspect, at least to me, being of Jewish descent, is the anti-Semitism.
Who can fail to be aware of the inordinate suffering and death of the holocaust, and the near-destruction of one of Europe’s most prodigious cultures? And yet, anti-Semitism is a specific term: a direct prejudice and contempt against Jews. If, contrary to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, we are to accept that Nazism is a wider notion with political and social ramifications instead of mere racism, then limiting the definition to anti-Semitism would be like saying that it is necessarily German. And yet there were people who identify themselves as Nazis, both then and now of other nationalities, from Europe and beyond.
The anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany seems to be dependent on circumstance; the convenient and latent prejudice in Europe against Jews at the time that climaxed through the likes of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and co. If Nazism was the engine for the realisation of this hatred, then what was it? Perhaps looking at the word itself may provide an answer. Nazi is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers Party – National Socialism. At last, a working definition! I shall explore this interplay of Nationalism and Socialism shortly, but perhaps now it would be prudent to identify the basic trait of the likes of the BNP, who claim not to be Nazi. Their nationalistic sentiment is unquestionable, but their frequent attacks on those on the “left” seem to confound one half of being a Nazi! The answer can be found in a famously distinctive characteristic of such parties; their tendency to populism.
The appeal to the masses; attempting to achieve power through popularity which is realised through policies and rhetoric that suit the popular mood, or whatever opinion happens to be fashionable is not a new concept, nor is it confined to those parties on the fringes. One might well say it goes hand-in-hand with democracy itself. Indeed, Populist elements can be identified in all political campaigns in the West, great and small. I can think of no better demonstration than the recent presidential election in the USA, where traditionally the party with the support of churchgoers is almost guaranteed to win. The Republican’s pretension of being “moral” through its denial of rights to gay people and women over their own relationships and bodies helped to secure those votes, and thus victory.
One sees those seeking to gain power through populism therefore railing against what is perceived to be elitist or aristocratic, we see rhetoric such as “the ivory tower intellectual elite”, “the left/liberal media”, “they think they know better than you” and the like. The drastic critique of the status quo is not, it should be noted, a characteristic solely of those on the far right. Forming the basis of Marxist principles also, it should be noted that such distinctions of “left” and “right” are merely economic, whereas political spectra are far more fluid. The anti-establishment rote is performed in an effort to appeal to a popular sentiment of oppression or subjugation of the masses at the hands of the elite, with the aim of validating the individual’s right to self-determination through that particular political party.
A similarly used and equally ancient tactic is simply to appeal to the fears and prejudices of the people. The psychologist Stanley Milgram notes that obedience “is a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct. (1)” With a large group of discontented people this is like a spark to a tinderbox; it does not always require a prominent individual to cause this fear. A self-sustaining anger and suspicion in many communities is sufficient, and then it is simply a question of obedience to popular opinion. We see this increasing in Britain with a moral panic regarding immigration. Urban legends, uninformed hysteria and a need for a moral “baddie” against which to band together and fight make it exceptionally easy for the populist to associate himself with the interests of the masses and identify an enemy in a different culture, race or even an alien philosophy.
In effect this reduces the collective “span of sympathy” of the group being courted by the Populist, such that an “us” and “them” mentality is formed. The group tendency then is to consider solely the perceived negativity or amorality of their victims and not the underlying narrative that caused that perception.
We might, thinking as individuals, stand a better chance of doing so, a chance that sadly decreases when one in authority says otherwise. The new enemy can then be made to appear somehow less human, less worthy, less good. Reveal that the baddies are attacking the goodies, often by amplifying a relatively small indiscretion (the more repugnant the better) into a perception of major deviancy or malevolence and the group will gladly fall into line behind their new popular champion, as revealed by the likes of Hermann Goering (2). This is the ultimate conclusion and aim of every populist.
Populism, along with democracy, is at first glance noble in appearance; governing for and by the people as a whole but the whole concept rests upon the assumption “that which is popular is correct”. This is a peculiar assumption and is indeed a fallacy (argumentum ad populum/bandwagon fallacy). It should be self-evident that this is so, the child bullied for not following a particular fashioned is comforted with this fact, and yet will grow up being enticed with the same canard. Semantic word games determine whether or not such a falsehood is taken seriously, and noble lies are built upon it.
Such lies are used in marketing; populism is, after all, empowering for the masses. It encourages unity in the face of something supposed to be an enemy. One could quite easily say that it encourages a kind of exclusive socialism. Certainly the egalitarianism with an anti-elite attitude, brutal utilitarianism never mind the good of the economy and a belief in the graciousness and superiority of the group are indicative of socialist tendencies. Further to this is almost an extension of the witch-hunt vigilante morality described earlier, as a conclusion of the utilitarianism a totalitarian attribute is fostered for all. Never mind the sufferings that can be inflicted on those unlucky enough to be the victims of the populist, people themselves can be manipulated into happily surrendering their liberties when they feel threatened, as described by the prophetic Herr Goering. That the state must come before the individual is a common thread in totalitarian and extreme socialist governments and that leads onto nationalism, the second component of Nazism.
It should be evident thus far, and from history, how populism leads to nationalism. After all, if a populist claims as he must that he represents the needs of the people, the logical group for him to appeal to is that with overt patriotism. Of course there are those who are not so easily seduced but no matter, obedience always comes after the application of a big enough stick. Fault lines of socio-economic class are insufficient if a populist is to have a greater appeal, for the less understanding one group has of another, the less “local” the neighbour, the easier it is for people to think it an enemy. The artificial boundaries of trade and economy become rigid and prescriptive to the masses, the fluidic boundaries of culture become dogmatic and natural boundaries of geography and a person’s appearance become hailed as a superior island in an ocean of opportunists and barbarians.
This nationalism is another fallacy; that “it is sweet and proper to die for one’s country” to quote the Roman poet Horace, seems absurd to me when that country is nothing more than a manmade political entity, a geographic location and a culture that changes every day without need of a single death or blinded eye. Nationalists respond to this by claiming that it is reasonable to wish to defend and fight for ones you love; family and friends for instance and with that I have no contention. However to go to say that they love their country and culture and their brethren within seems nonsensical. Unless one has knowledge of everyone, how is it possible to love them - to wish to go to such extremes, and how more so than one who happens to be on the other side of one of those artificial boundaries?
One should note an interesting irony in the people and those who would be their popular leaders. The leaders, or those with the loudest voices, are able to wield power by changing peoples’ opinion, yet their power is limited by that opinion. No matter the style of government, an executive can only go so far without the support of the people. In which case one should not differentiate between those in power and the people themselves, they are the same entity, it is merely incidental who is trusted as the leader. When the die is thrown, whatsoever face is drawn is still a part of the die. Thanks to human nature as previously discussed, the two cannot function without each other, they are an organism. Perhaps then one face in six is the Nazi face, proportional to the degree of populism.
It can be seen here that Nationalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive. Through the device of populism, Nazism perpetuates itself by distinguishing between groups and ultimately nations; appealing to patriotism within a group to bond it cohesively which manifests itself in socialism, but whose zealous conclusion is somewhat more communistic. We see this in the history of Nazi Germany. Ignore subsidiary economic differences, and Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia bear an uncanny resemblance! Individual freedoms are limited in favour of totalitarianism, groups deemed enemies of the state are ruthlessly persecuted and the state exercises a tight control of propaganda in order to manipulate the population. Socialism married to nationalism has another disturbing consequence. To consider other groups to be attacking your own, and that yours is worth defending, requires that those groups in what is purported to be their essence, are inferior to your own. In relative terms, this means that the populist purports his group to be superior, breeding national superiority, cultural hegemony and racial supremacy. The consequences of these are obvious, frightening, and proven.
So what does all of this mean? Firstly, it proves that the BNP et al. are, despite their protestations, Nazis. Undoubtedly these claims to the contrary are an effort to appear respectable and present a civilised façade, underneath which their members’ belligerence is cloaked until, heaven forbid, they come to power and realise their barbarism. It shows that Nazism is not a German issue, nor a Jewish issue, though National Socialism should never be allowed to escape the guilt for the iniquity of the Holocaust. It is a weapon, though its target changes with the times.
It shows that National Socialism is disturbingly human, deeply rooted in human nature and society, waiting to realise itself should the situation arise. Running in symbiosis between people and leaders, and patriotism and collectivism it relies on and manipulates our fundamental fears and insecurities, as well as the dangerous situation that invariably occurs when stupid people form large groups. It also shows that political freedoms in society are very much a double-edged sword; democracy has the potential to become a slippery slope to Nazism, seen in the failings of the Weimar Republic (in the author’s opinion, the most perfect democracy seen thus far in World history) which lead to the rise of Hitler.
How does one ensure that Nazism and its associated horrors can never be allowed to rise to power again, in whatever manifestation it may take? Resorting to the tactics of intimidation and totalitarianism in order to prevent such a thing is hypocritical and unbecoming of a society that claims to be civilised and just. No, all it requires is vigilance. Those the BNP love so much to vilify, the “ivory tower intellectuals”: historians, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, are the ones best placed to understand this threat from within ourselves, and education - understanding of Nazism will go some way to prevent people being enticed by it. We must also stop teaching children that it started with the Treaty of Versailles and died in 1945, and stop turning the recognised faces of it into folk devils. That belies the very humanity of Nazism, a potential that exists within all of us. Denial of it, either through fear or an effort to defend the sensibilities of those that suffered by it to my mind is a dangerous route to take.
Having said that, special mention must be made of its most long-suffering victims, the Jews. A people who have suffered long and hard and the hands of Nazism are, it is reasonable to say, the ones who must take the lead in being vigilant against it. This will post a difficult challenge for Jewish nationalists; those who claim that Judaism is inextricably linked with Zionism are making a hypocritical error in my opinion that, instead of honouring the suffering of the holocaust, will (or perhaps already has) serve to repeat it.
Will this vigilance happen? Will the tragedy of Nazism be repeated? Perhaps the answer to the second question depends on the answer to the first.
Refs.
(1) http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html
(2) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring
Comment