You need to fully read the article before you make a really strong accusation like that.
"I think young D over there is the only born Nazi in the room. Young D is the spoiled only son of a doting mother. He has never been crossed in his life. He spends his time at the game of seeing what he can get away with. He is constantly arrested for speeding and his mother pays the fines."
If you actually read the article in its entirety, it's pretty clear from both her misuse of the words 'born' and 'biological factors' that Dorothy Thompson, unlike Nazis, is refering environmental factors and not genetic ones. Misuse of those words are the only flaws I see in what's otherwise a good article that feels sadly still relevant today.
It's interesting that you assume, incorrectly, that I did not read the article in its entirety.
So the explanation for the true meaning of her article is that she somehow "misused" the words born and biological throughout her arguments? and that what fundamentally causes someone to become a Nazi is their environment?
Whether your interpretation of her arguments is correct or not, I hold that individuals who promote national-socialism (i.e. Nazism) are entirely responsible for choosing evil ideas (not helpless pawns of their childhood feeding, physical training, or as you assert "environmental factors").
Ok, if you read the article then you've missed the context. She's pretty clear as to what she's meant by born which I've quoted above i.e born with a silver spoon. She's also made it clear as to what she meant by 'biological factors' which others have already commented on as well as quoted, which is definitely not how people today would interpret it.
To the downvoters -- if you ascribe, or condone someone ascribing, someone's ideas and character to their birth or ancestry you are objectively no better than racists and Nazis.
"born Nazi" does not imply that ancestry or ethnicity plays into it. It's merely saying that the personality that one is born with does. i.e. there is some quality of personality that we are born with.
Fourth paragraph: "Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature."
She's ascribing an inclination to Nazism to feeding and physical training. There is no charitable interpretation.
Added [I'm blocked from responding]:
Near the end: "L is the strongest natural-born Nazi in this room... He has the brains of Neanderthal man, but he has an infallible instinct for power."
She constantly ascribes adherence or willingness to adhere to Nazism to a biological cause -- being born, one's feeding, a physical training, Neanderthal man, or instinct.
This is not how to understand Nazism, or its causes; nor is it how to fight it.
> First paragraph: "I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, ..." [emphasis added]
> Fourth paragraph: "Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature."
It's obvious that she's talking about upbringing rather than genetics, despite the word choice. You're being way too literal.
She says repeatedly that Nazism is not genetic but is potentially rooted in the earliest upbringing. When she talks about "young D," "the only born Nazi in the room," she says a lot about his upbringing and nothing whatsoever about his heritage. That's what "born" means to Dorothy Thompson.
The word "born" is clearly an awkward choice--perhaps it worked better in the idiom of 1941--but you're not doing any good by ignoring context and stubbornly insisting on a literal dictionary reading.
Actually, there is not a single mention of genes or "genetic" in that article. What are you referring to?
Your interpretation of the word "born" is bizarre. She is repeatedly describing someone's Nazism to be directly caused by biological breeding and processes (such as feeding, physical training, or Neanderthal brains).
Hang on, what are you actually arguing for? I thought blaming politics on genetics was what you were upset about in the first place.
Are you actually saying it's immoral to say that the circumstances of a person's upbringing can affect their adult behavior? Because that goes way beyond just misinterpreting the article.
The distinction made, throughout the article and all the descriptions it gives, is between those who would be a Nazi were it profitable to do so, and those who would be a Nazi wholeheartedly. The former are Nazis by circumstance, while the latter are those termed as "born Nazis". It does not refer to one's birth or heritage, but the enthusiasm with which one would join a despicable movement.
There certainly is, since that phrase is almost always used figuratively, to mean "that really suits them." You seem to have decided to choose this instance as the one time it absolutely couldn't be figurative. Focusing on one word is poor rhetoric.