The Fallacialist Lothrop Stoddard

Sven Lindqvist’s “Exterminate all the Brutes” explores the idea that genocides have been deeply rooted in European thinking over the last century. It is written in the form of a travel dairy and a historical examination of European racism over the past two centuries. Lindqvist argues that the harrowing racism that led to the Holocaust in the twentieth century had its roots in European colonial policy of the preceding century. The act of genocide itself is not a new one. When we think of genocide today we think Rwanda and the Holocaust. Genocides have been validated by the idea of racial superiority, colonial expansion and imperialism. The most civilized of men are capable of the most brutal acts.

The dictation of all of the members remains vague throughout the meeting, leaving much of the decisions up to interpretation. This is caused by the use of words such as “cleanse” and “evacuation” instead of directly stating the goals of killing anyone that has been identified as a Jew. One of the main deceptions used is “solving the Jewish question” and it has implications of being an easy question to solve. The goal was to have total “‘physical eradication” and “cleanse the entire continent.” This deception is then followed to the methods used to kill. The ‘T-4 program’ was established as a plan to sterilize any individual with a mental disability. This leads to the conversation of which method of sterilization should be used and is most effective. As the meeting proceeds, the joke is made; “who would want them?” and is responded to with a chorus of laughter. This meeting was accompanied by many lawyers or well-educated men leading to the statement that “it [a law degree] has made me distrustful of language,” giving reason to the limited specifics mentioned. Throughout the meeting the German leaders are not specific in their plan. This allows for them to justify what is being done by claiming it was not their intention for a certain act to happen.

Nationalism has been extremely important and influential in shaping the modern world we see today, causing revolutions, rebellions and the constant reshaping of world maps continuing even today. Its appeal is something that I don’t believe will diminish in the future. Many theologians and political commentators alike agree that Nationalism has perhaps been one of the most prominent political ideologies of the modern world “No single political doctrine has played a more prominent role in shaping the face of the modern world than nationalism” 1, and doesn’t look like ceasing to be as influential anytime

The source presented depicts an army of men following a singular leader off the edge of a cliff, as well as the quote from Einstein that compares the ideas of nationalism to the childish disease of measles. The perspective clearly is that nationalism is the rooting cause of war and misfortunate events that have occurred throughout history. From the source it can be inferred that nationalistic beliefs are dangerous and promote blind obedience. The partial embracing of the source can benefit the reader and open minds to certain ideas. However, the complete embracement of the source can lead to extremely close minded and biased opinions; only one side of the source is revealed, inferably from a

Nationalism is a powerful force that can unite people working towards a common goal, but when it is taken to the extreme it can cause major disharmony in society, evident in the numerous genocides during the Age of Imperialism, the Fascist party's rise to power, and the Japanese’s unwillingness to surrender during World War II. Nationalism is dangerous, because it warps the minds of the individuals in the organization, creates prejudice and discrimination, and can be easily manipulated into a weapon against humanity.

“Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline of the hybrid product as long as the higher element of this crossing is itself still existent in any kind of racial unity. The danger for the hybrid product is eliminated only at the moment when the last higher racial element is bastardized.” (Manheim). This quote is important because before concentration camps were created, this quote shows in the future about how Hitler wanted to exterminate the “un-pure” race. Through Hitler’s eyes the basis of social judgment was a three-part categorization of human beings. Aryans were at the top and they were really the only ones, in his mind, that were able to create civilizations. They were classified as culture creating. The next category was culture bearing which were people like the Latinas and Asians that could only maintain culture. The culture destroying people, Hitler believed were the Non- Aryans, which included Jews, Gays, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Blacks, and even the Handicapped. He believed that they could only destroy civilizations and that Germany had been infected with non-Aryans. He felt like they were sub-human and that they could only threaten his perfect race. So to exterminate this imperfect race he put them in concentration camps, exiled them on the street, or forced them to work on a slave farms. Most of them ended up in concentration camps. Above the gates of all concentration

These horrors caused by nationalism seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from the promising ideal of democracy. As Ghia Nodia pointed out, many

Today, the scourge of nationalism continues to infect humanity. Without doubt, in some circles, nationalism is hotly debated. For most people, however, the concept of nationalism is rarely questioned. In fact, it 's a foregone conclusion that people should love the nation in which they reside. Some people even take great pride in the fact that they were arbitrarily born in a specific geographical location. Unfortunately, like religion or capitalism, nationalism is alive and well in the 21st century.

Nationalism is a widely debated ideology that differs based on the historian’s definition. For example, Benedict Anderson attempts to define nationalism as "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign"(Anderson, pg 6). Anderson also believes the main causes of nationalism can be

“In my speech before the Reichstag on the first of September 1939, I spoke of two matters: first, since we are forced into war, neither the threat of weapons nor a period of transition shall conquer us; second, if world Jewry launches another war in order to destroy the Aryan nations of Europe, it will not be the Aryan nations that will be destroyed, but the Jews...Once the Germans Jews laughed at my prophecy. I do not know whether they are still laughing, or whether they are laughing on the other side of their faces. I can simply repeat — they will stop laughing altogether, and I will fulfill my prophecy in this field too.”

Nationalism has become one of the most powerful uniting-and occasionally separating-powers of the modern age. Throughout history, there were numerous countries that exemplified both sides of this classic European belief. However, as time has passed, this pride and promotion of one’s country has developed far beyond the scope of Europe. Nationalist feelings fester in all parts of the globe now, and with that comes more complicated expressions of the sentiment, as well as carefully crafted governments that exist for the sole support of nationalist fervor.

Before a discourse of the specified topic can be laid out, definitions of a few terms must be distinguished. Firstly, nationalism and patriotism are two distinctly different concepts that are often used interchangeably to represent a similar school of thought. By no means, are they mutually exclusive or unrelated ideologies, but nationalism and patriotism differ in their approaches to expressing love for one’s country, respectively. These definitions can be best understood on the shoulders of essayist and drama critic, Sydney J. Harris, “The Difference Between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility while the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to a war (Harris, 1953).” While the latter definition may be a bit extreme, the general impression is still applicable. An understanding of the dichotomy between nationalism and patriotism, and how

In short, nationalism is both good and bad. It seems to block rational behavior and logical thinking to be replaced by radical support for a cause. When it’s functioning well, it allows the citizens of a country to unite with each other and share a common interest. Unfortunately this is hard to govern, and it seems to be directed by government bodies and religion. Radical support can go either way, for or against any topic. Middle ground isn’t something

“Nationalism cannot only aggravate ethnic relations within the state, but it can also spill over borders and increase the likelihood of international conflict”

Audi (2009) encapsulates extreme nationalists as those would say “my country right or wrong” (p. 367). This level of nationalism believes patriotism is a virtue and that when an action is required in the national interest citizens have “an overriding obligation to act accordingly” (Audi, 2009, p. 367). When a policy decision might only advance the extreme nationalist’s nation only slightly, even though it may cause extreme suffering in another part