When I was six or seven, and first learned about Switzerland’s neutrality in World War Two, I thought it was great that peaceful Switzerland didn’t get involved in the hideous carnage. It wasn’t long afterwards, once I learned a bit more about the Nazis, that I understood that Switzerland’s principled neutrality was actually an acceptance of the equal right of plundering Nazis and desperate, wealthy Jews, to safeguard their fortunes during this world catastrophe, to the great benefit of a banking nation who took no moral position on anything other than protecting, and enhancing their own, wealth. In other words, Swiss neutrality, when Nazis were going full ape shit in the world, was not a good thing but a rather evil thing.
Heather Cox Richardson, in a recent talk with Jon Stewart, made an excellent point about the feelings of most people. We want to get along, not have to fight, or be intimidated, or made to feel isolated or uncomfortable. In any group of ten, she pointed out, if two are intent on power and control, they will choose two, make them the source of all evil by vilifying them, often by lies, and turn the other six against them. You can see the short clip of her description here.
What I have come to realize is that it is only necessary for the two who want control of the group to recruit two others to their side. If they can convince two, the next four are almost automatic. The two they convince will be very credible advocates for the proposition that those two selected for exclusion are beyond redemption, sick, evil, disgusting, dirty, nasty, mean, ugly etc. They will be the best ambassadors for the position of the two they follow. It will be natural for the next two and then the last two to follow the group. In a tight-knit group, consensus always makes sense if the group intends to remain intact. It is, after all, a loving group that very much cherishes its closeness. Nothing brings people closer than shunning a common enemy.
Finding myself on the short end of this common equation, with a group of lifelong friends, I’ve had to ponder the dynamics of this in order to make some kind of peace with it. I’ve learned that those who can never be wrong, must be perfect, have no tools for resolving conflict, need to control others or they feel threatened themselves, live their lives on a war footing.
As you try to resolve a conflict with them they are already busy recruiting allies, spreading a stilted story to make you hateful, forming an iron coalition, first with two and then with everyone. It is impossible, then, after a good, righteous lynching, for a group to believe that they have done the wrong thing when they are unanimous in their moral position. In fact, the more wrong they are, the harder they will fight to make sure you’re good and dead and without any ability to make them feel like the credulous lynch mob they’ve become.
When you ask your old friends how they could believe such lies against you, they will insist that they are completely neutral, like Switzerland. Who are they to decide who is actually the Nazi in this scenario and who are those persecuted by Nazis? It’s a flawed metaphor. They are Switzerland, they will insist, taking no side, but, sadly, they will never see you or talk to you again.






