The New York Times’ Nazi story goes off the rails

Most readers, understandably, were shocked at what they saw as a strangely sympathetic profile of a Nazi, dwelling on the banal aspects of his life. And they were right to be appalled at what they were reading, but they were wrong about what the The New York Times’ agenda really was.

The Times’ agenda wasn’t to generate sympathy for the Nazi, it was to inject into the public discourse the notion that the average American was, and could actually be, a literal Nazi. Without you knowing. It was a story meant to change, in the most horrific of ways, how Americans think about their neighbors. It was meant to sow paranoia and division.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Nope. The NYT is pro Nazi. Has been. Not specifically Nazi as in ‘let’s go join the party!’ but any group you can get that wants to bring along another Holocaust, the Times can get behind them. And they have.

  • robins111

    I read the article. The guy doesn’t claim to be a nazi, however one of the web sites he was looking at had swastika LARPing armbands. As such he was evil epitomized.

  • Do Nazis actually exist anymore? If I were in charge of determining who is, or who is not, a Nazi, I would have two fundamental questions for them:

    a) do you currently participate in the persecution or murder of Jews?
    b) did you in fact participate in the Holocaust; or if you were born after WWII do you envision your participation in any future Holocaust?

    If the answer to those two fundamental questions is negative, then I don’t think you’ve got a Nazi. In fact the only people that I’m aware of who would respond “yes” to both questions today are the Muslim Jihadis and Palestinian fanatics.