Wittgenstein and Hitler

An analysis of the philosophical critique of Nazism, from various disciplines and perspectives of philosophy, lacks precisely the most established and expected one - and precisely because of that. This perspective solves several historical puzzles regarding the Nazi phenomenon: Why specifically the Jews? How did it ultimately deteriorate to the Holocaust? And what was the source of the phenomenon's power to begin with? For all these, it provides a necessary explanation, not just a possible one

Heil Pinocchio  (Source)

The critique of Nazism (funny) initially focused on morality, and later on aesthetics, and there were also political theory and philosophy of religion, but the root of the Nazi error is actually in epistemology and even ontology, in something that Socrates and Plato would feel they had warned against, that is, in demagoguery (and for example - Heidegger and Nietzsche with their pre-Socratic and anti-Platonic approaches).

This was where Hitler's genius lay - as a demagogue, not as a politician, commander, or thinker - something that even Athenian democracy grappled with, not just Weimar. In other words, the problem was with truth/falsehood, Hitler's ability to tell a "big lie," to tell everyone what they want to hear, and to be swept up in his own demagoguery and turn it into truth, that is, in fantasy that takes over reality. It's not even philosophy of language, but rather the opposite, his genius in Mein Kampf was in his propagandistic insights, and the ability to create the Holocaust was precisely due to this deception, the concealment and unclear, irrational, and metaphorical statements.

Therefore, poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric, not prose, or painting, because what was proven corrupt is the metaphor and imagination and fantastic literature that flourished then (Kafka, Surrealism, Expressionism, Absurdism). The Holocaust was based on concealment and lies and incitement, intertwined, and therefore the mixture of knowledge and lack of knowledge and inability to know and believe.

The virulent antisemitism entered Hitler so deeply only because it was absolute demagoguery, the peak of demagoguery, all of it demagoguery, and therefore as a demagogue he was both swept up by it and fueled it, because there he could touch the irrational part and ride it, it was the tiger that brought him up. Therefore, it's not just Hitler but the entire situation in Europe before the Holocaust of modern antisemitism. Antisemitism was the widest ontological hole, the place where truth/falsehood became most blurred and turned liquid, and therefore the central point and origin of all propaganda potion, because it was the most longstanding and deep-rooted propaganda in the past, precisely because of the deep historical roots of the Jews - propaganda that remained relevant in the air for two thousand years.

In other words, a lie that existed for thousands of years, and therefore gained the depth of truth, is an especially destructive lie (which must be uprooted), because anyone who wants to lie can start from it to collapse the system of truths. Just as one logical contradiction can collapse all of mathematics, so can one basic evil collapse all morality, once it becomes a starting point. Hence the importance of ontology against demagoguery, and the mistake in abandoning the Socratic polemic in the marketplace against it and the Platonic seclusion in the academy. The philosopher should strive for an encounter with his enemy - the demagogue.

In fact, it began with the demagoguery of Christianity, Jesus was the one who started a tradition of preaching. Moses was not a preacher, nor was Muhammad, they were prophets. Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy is much less dangerous, because it brings content from above and does not flatter content from below. It doesn't ride the tiger but speaks in the name of the lion. There is a true prophet, false - the prophet speaks in the name of truth, and the preacher speaks in the name of speech. Therefore, the philosophy of language is another expression of the Nazi danger. Dealing with the way of speaking and not the content. And so is all modern art. Therefore, if there is a conclusion to be drawn, it is truth, not good or beauty or democracy.