November 13, 2015
Trump, Hitler and Abductive Reasoning
Let me start the post with a clear disclaimer, since failing to do so will invite unreasonable conclusions. Trump is not the American Hitler, far from it. The similarities between the two are actually limited and comparisons between the two from a policy perspective are stretched. Just starting with the obvious fact that Hitler was very anti-semitic, where as Trump is philo-semitic; a staunch supporter of Israel, two children who married Jews, and has many Jews working for his campaign is enough to blow up any comparison between the two.
Some on the left have tried to compare Trump to Hitler because of his comments regarding illegal Mexican immigrants. Ironically, if a WW2 era analogy is so desired, La Raza and it's kind could be best compared to the Nazis. After all the main tenets of the National Socialist worker party[7] were:
1. Unite Germans under one Reich
2. Reclaim lost territory
3. Obtain Lebensraum for a growing population.
La Raza et al. goals [1,2]:
1. Unite territories of Aztlan
2. Reclaim territory that used to be part of Mexico
3. Expand population into American territory
In this analogy the USA is the USSR: a large multi-ethnic country under the influence of Marxism that was invaded.
----
Onto the full post-
The rise of Hitler has been a conundrum that many historians have had difficulty explaining. How could Germany, one of the most advanced countries in the world, highly intelligent and educated, elect the National Socialist to power?
How could such a civilized country be reduced to the barbarism of the Holocaust? The basic argument that the depression, treaty of Versailles, and loss of pride fail to adequately and specifically explain why Hitler rose to power, and not someone else. There were many German leaders at the time who addressed these same concerns.
The answer lies in Hitlers use of abductive reasoning [3]. There are 3 types of reasoning
1. Deductive. Drawing a specific conclusion from more general facts.
2. Inductive. Drawing a general conclusion from more specific facts.
3. Abductive. A "form of logical inference which goes beyond observation to a theory which accounts for the observation [..] One can understand abductive reasoning as an inference to the best explanation" [4]
Abductive reasoning is therefore a kind of narrative generation. For example, let us say that upon walking down a street we see a door open to a house. We walk inside and see many items disturbed, draws opened and emptied and so on. We can deduce very little. Using abductive reasoning we could say that the house was broken into by robbers and they left in a hurry, or some story along those lines. It's the type of reasoning used by a detective or a health practitioner.
Hitler at his core had the following narrative:
Facts:
1. The Jews have a disproportionate influence in politics, banking, media, and the arts.
2. Germany lost the war, is humiliated and weakened, and is suffering economically, morally, and spiritually.
Conclusion via abductive reasoning:
The Jews are a parasitic race who subvert the national character of the German nation. They, with the help of traitors, have overtaken Germany and conspired to sabotage the WW1 effort, corrupted the moral fabric of the country, and are exploiting the German people for their own profit. The solution therefor is rid Germany of the Jews and to establish a patriotic government for the German people.
When it came to specific policy proposals, Hitler was often vague, and outright saying that he had no economic theory[5]! What good would marginal changes be, if at it's core it did not deal with the Jewish Qustion? The brilliance of this political strategy is that it is immune from direct economic criticism, cannot be easily co-opted by competing political parties, puts the competing parties on the defensive in trying to disprove the premise, and reinforces the message that the solution is to put the Nazi party power. If the problem is the Jews, the solution is Nazis; policies will be formed once they are in power.
Trump
Facts:
1.Immigration, both legal and illegal, are at at record levels in recent decades.
2.Trade agreements have decreased tariffs and increased trade between the USA other countries with cheaper labor (China, Mexico, etc.) and driven large trade deficits.
3.Large sums of money are needed to campaign in national elections and politicians solicit donations from wealthy donors.
Conclusion via abductive reasoning:
Weak politicians have sold out the country by failing to represent the interests of the American people in negotiations with other countries. Foreigners from without and political donors from within take advantage of our country. We are losing our jobs, money, and the wars we fight. The solution is to elect a strong and savvy leader who is independent and will run a patriotic government that serves the interests of the people.
Specific policies therefore are not terribly important, after all flexibility is needed and the solution is to put Trump in power[6]. Trump will make America Great Again.
Many might say that this political strategy isn't sufficient and won't hold up to public scrutiny. They are sorely mistaken, and Trump's success so far supports this. Another example, albeit with different origins and anatomy, is the liberal narrative that we have suffered from for decades. Despite being based on very little evidence-
1. All racial differences are due to discrimination. Whites do well because of White Privilege
2. Gender is a social construct, and gender differences come from differences in socialization
3. People are born gay, but race and gender differences are environmental.
4. Diversity is a strength
5. History moves in one direction and "social progress" is inevitable
As most of my readers are sure to know, these tenets of liberalism are absurd and in direct contradiction to both objective and anecdotal evidence, and yet even today in 2015 this remains the dominant societal narrative in Western countries. The advocates repeated it frequently enough, agitated for change and silenced and shamed detractors. Luckily, we are on the verge of a narrative collapse, and I strongly believe our situation is analogous to being Russians in 1980. If you were a Russian 35 years ago communism was all you knew, it was all your parents knew, it was the enlightened philosophy; it was the future. In less than 15 years communism was dead. Virtually no one today believes in soviet style communism, and students write essays on the failure of economic Marxism. Our grandchildren will likewise write essays on how egalitarian democratic principles devolved into the absurdity of modern day cultural Marxism, and why the need for tradition, hierarchy, identity, and ethnic solidarity are important foundations of every society.
I can not help but draw a very deep conclusion;
never underestimate the Will To Power. Asserting one's own narrative confidently and consistently is much more effective than trying to gain approval from within the enemy's narrative. Both Trump's and Hitler's rejection of the established narratives, and unapologetic assertion of their own is a powerful Dionysian political tactic that traditionalists and nationalists must learn from and implement themselves.
[1]
[2]
http://www.amren.com/ar/1995/09/index.html
[3]
Amazon.com: Hitler and Abductive Logic: The Strategy of a Tyrant (9780739192245): Ben Novak: Books
[4]
Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia
[5]
Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia
[6]
Student Confronts Trump Over His Lack of Specificity
[7]
National Socialist Program - Wikipedia
