This week, in the identical spirit that led me to rewatch all of “Babylon Berlin” final month, I learn “Wigs on the Inexperienced,” Nancy Mitford’s 1935 comedian novel spoofing her sisters Diana and Unity, who have been deeply concerned with the fascist actions in Britain and Germany. (Diana’s marriage ceremony to Oswald Mosley, the chief of the British Union of Fascists (B.U.F.), was held in Joseph Goebbels’ lounge with Adolf Hitler in attendance. Unity moved to Germany, the place she turned shut buddies with Hitler.)

The guide is a exceptional snapshot of a historic window wherein fascism was common sufficient to lampoon however was nonetheless seen by many in Britain as a foolish interest reasonably than a consequential political motion. Within the novel, the “Union Jackshirts” — a barely veiled reference to Mosley’s B.U.F. supporters, whose uniforms earned them the nickname “Blackshirts” — are a confused gang of naïve wealthy individuals who be part of up as a result of they’re bored and/or making an attempt to sleep with one another. The purpose of the novel is just not that the motion is harmful, however that it takes itself too severely.

Nancy Mitford seems to have initially had that angle towards fascism herself. In “The Mitford Women,” a biography of the household, Mary S. Lovell writes that Nancy had really been a member of the B.U.F. for a time, apparently as a result of she noticed it as a solution to be supportive of Diana. After the social gathering’s rallies grew extra violent and militaristic, Nancy started to distance herself. By the point warfare broke out a number of years later, she had turn into so involved that she urged the British authorities to imprison Diana and her husband as threats to nationwide safety.

It’s a working theme in each “Wigs on the Inexperienced” and “Babylon Berlin”: Within the early years, fascism appeared foolish and vulgar, a motion obsessive about uniforms and public pomp. But it surely was so faraway from “actual” politics that nobody thought of it greater than a distraction, an inconvenience or maybe a device to be wielded.

That dismissive angle jogs my memory, oddly sufficient, of the maxim from the world of start-ups that disruptive improvements typically look foolish. “The explanation huge new issues sneak by incumbents is that the subsequent huge factor at all times begins out being dismissed as a ‘toy,’” Chris Dixon, a outstanding enterprise capitalist, wrote in an influential essay in 2010, drawing on insights from “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” by Clayton Christensen. Dixon argued that bigger corporations don’t trouble to defend in opposition to improvements from smaller rivals, as a result of they take into account ”toys” beneath their discover. After which, all of the sudden, they uncover that the upstarts have cannibalized their markets.

Enterprise and politics are each simply extensions of human nature. So maybe it’s not stunning that related patterns may present up in each arenas — and in present-day politics as properly.

What ought to I be studying?

Thanks to everybody who wrote in to inform me about what you’re studying. Please maintain the submissions coming!

I need to hear about issues you’ve learn, watched or listened to that you just assume I ought to take a look at. It might be due to themes I’ve written about within the e-newsletter, or an thought that you just assume is price exploring. However I’m additionally all for issues that you just simply assume all of us may take pleasure in.

In the event you’d prefer to take part, you may fill out this kind. I’ll publish your response in a future e-newsletter.

Thanks for being a subscriber

Learn previous editions of the e-newsletter right here.

In the event you’re having fun with what you’re studying, please take into account recommending it to others. They will join right here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters right here.

I’d love your suggestions on this article. Please electronic mail ideas and ideas to interpreter@nytimes.com. You may also observe me on Twitter.