Fascism and the Eliminiation of Christianity: A Review

Ever since high school I've had a fascination with different ideological stances and the differences with my own beliefs. In my freshman year of college, my interests directed me in the direction of Marxism, probably due to my interest in Eastern European politics, and I wrote several papers accordingly. That passion dwindled over time as my interest in the 17th and 18th century grew, but politics, and, ever increasingly, economics still held my interest.

At a book sale in college, I picked up a copy of Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview by Dr. Gene Edward Veith, Jr. I was vaguely aware of Dr. Veith, as his book The Spirituality of the Cross was required reading for one of my classes. Then, in premarital counseling, his book Family Vocation: God's Calling in Marriage, Parenting, and Childhood was also "required reading", though without the compulsory book review due at the end of the "course." I have since met Dr. Veith on two different occasions, and got him to sign each of these books. Aside from being an incredibly intelligent man on an academic basis, he is also a skilled writer with great knowledge about the faith that he confesses.

I was especially impressed with this book for several reasons, but mainly because it is much different than the other two books I have read by Dr. Veith. It is a large, but not unrelated, step from the doctrine of Vocation and Justification to Fascism. These books all have one thing in common: the Christian, and more specifically, the Confessional Lutheran worldview. Modern Fascism is different than the other two in that it addresses an opposing worldview which seeks to destroy the Christian worldview.

When I picked up this book a few weeks ago to begin reading it, I was intrigued by the subject mainly because Fascism isn't something that is talked about much today. Conservative news programs and authors squawk about the threat of Marxism, mainly because of its popularity within academia within the last few decades, and the consequential influence of that popularity, but the conversation is never turned to Fascism. After reading this book, though, I would argue that the threat of Fascism is just as great, if not greater, than the threat of Marxism.

When the term Fascism is thrown out, a person's thoughts automatically go to WWII when the Nazis sought to conquer their European neighbors. The Third Reich is the best large scale example of a Fascist state. For this reason, much of the book discusses Nazi history and policy. Veith begins, just like any good author, with a definition of Fascism:

Fascist totalitarianism was more than a system of political control; it was totalitarian in seeking to encompass and to direct all of life. Fascism emerged not only as a political and economic system but as a new religion, whose promise was to heal the alienation of the modern world. The emotional life would be freed, harmony with nature would be achieved, and the culture would be revitalized. (p.17)

 He quickly points out his thesis: Fascism is the opposition to Christianity. This becomes even more clear upon considering the motives behind the Holocaust and the destruction of the Church.

The book is divided into nine chapters, each discussing a different aspect of the Fascist ideology and expounding upon how Hitler implemented these tenets in the Third Reich. While the entire book is worthy of discussion, I will touch on the two parts which I found most interesting, ethics (abortion and euthanasia) and the "mass mind" (the media), because of how prominent they are in the modern world.

As I begin this analysis, I would like to point out a common misconception about where Fascism resides on the political spectrum. As a student of political science, I was taught that Fascism was placed on the far right of the spectrum. In fact, a more accurate placement is on the same level as Communism on the far left. Veith explains that this misconception originates from the Marxist declaration that Fascism is its "polar opposite." (26) They are different strains of the same thought (socialism), just taken in different directions. In the case of Fascism, that direction was nationalism.


Ethics

Nazi ethics, on the broader scale, is notorious. The Holocaust was certainly one of the most horrific events in all of history. But Veith points out that racism was not the only impetus behind the mass murder of "inferior races." Hitler targeted the Jews because of the heritage that rooted them in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Next he targeted Christians who would not conform to his ideology, most notably Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer. In light of the Nazi ability to murder people because of their ethnicity and ideology, their views on abortion and euthanasia will not be astounding.

Hitler did not oppose abortion, if  you were racially inferior. For those of a superior racial background, he prohibited abortion. His means of growing the Nazi state was to tell young women that by producing children, possibly by multiple men of equally superior racial background, they were doing a service to the Third Reich. The marriage of Nazi officials had to be approved by the government to assure that their offspring would be genetically superior. But outside of the genetically superior exception, abortion was allowed. This caused Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, to toy with Fascism for a brief period. "Among the unfit, Sanger included those with mental problems, the handicapped, and poor people generally... she believed that crime and poverty can be eliminated simply by sterilizing the poorer classes." (108) Sanger found a kindred spirit with Hitler; she wished to eliminate many of the same people groups -- "blacks, Jews, Southern Europeans... and, in short, 'all non-aryan people.'" (108)

Likewise, euthanasia was common, oftentimes encouraged. The same people who Sanger wished to eliminate through abortion -- the handicapped, mentally retarded, etc, -- were eliminated. Veith tells stories of fathers begging for their child to be euthanized due to mental or physical handicaps. After a movie was released which portrayed a husband's struggle with his wife's terminal illness and subsequent decision to euthanize her, the vast populace agreed that he made the right decision. Some of the people were later horrified to find that this was occurring, but the vast majority did not oppose. The Nazis considered these handicapped and terminally ill people "life unworthy of life." Keeping in mind this mentality, the Holocaust is no longer so surprising. The Jews and other "inferior races" were unworthy of life, to the Nazis, and therefore killing them was doing the rest of the world a favor.


The Mass Mind

Hitler recognized the benefits of reaching the "mass mind" through the media. Veith remarks that "the Third Reich produced 1,363 films. Many were produced for sheer entertainment, with propaganda subtext..." (147) He continues:

The goal of Fascism was the creation of an organic, mass community. The power of images is that they unite diverse people into one. The individuals in a movie theater join in a common experience, feeling and responding as one.... Propaganda forged the people into a common will; it created the community. (148)

Hitler employed this tactic to achieve his plans for the people. Through the media and other means of influencing the masses, such as rallies, he won over the masses instead of the individual. He recognized the benefits of mob rule, and utilized it to his full advantage. This tactic was taken a step further by turning that mob to violence. By channeling anti-Judeo-Christian propaganda, the populace was effectively mobilized against them, thus gaining the population's support to massacre Jews and Christians.

* * *

The desire to be morally superior to other peoples, past and present, is in the forefront of the minds of most Americans. Of course, America would never kill millions of people because of their ethnicity or inability to adhere to the state ideology. An American president would never use violence as an end to a means. America isn't a Fascist state; it is not a totalitarian state. This post-modern world where everyone is accepted and a person's reality is truth would not allow such things to occur in America.

Or would it?

Certainly the American government does not imprison every non-Arian and sentence them to a life in a concentration camp, or death. The American populace is far too diverse for that. But that does not mean that people are not persecuted in today's society. Christians are targeted by the left; homosexuals are targeted by the right. Sinfulness aside, homosexuals are still human being who deserve respect, just like Christians. Should the life of either be lessened? There is a huge difference between disapproving of a person's lifestyle, and wishing death upon a person for their life choices. In an Islamic culture, which is oftentimes Fascist, the answer would be that both Christians and homosexuals are unworthy of life. This is evident in the genocide of Christians in the Middle East and Africa. But what about in American culture? Do Americans kill those who are different with their malice?

But what about the unborn child, especially an unborn child with defects or a mother who cannot financially care for the child? What does the world tell that mother to do? Just like the father who begged for his son to be euthanized so that he would not have to endure those hardships, the mother is encouraged to abort her baby because the child would have been born into a dire situation. The question that arises from that scenario is: does that child have the same right to life as the mother, or any other person on earth? Does Down Syndrome, or a cleft palate make that person less of a human with any less of a right to live? Nazi German would have said that the child did not deserve to live; what does modern America say?

What about the woman with a terminal or mental illness? If the husband opts to euthanize his wife, how will it change his life? And does he have the right to decide when his wife lives or dies? Despite her illness, she has the same right to live as her husband. This subject is just as divided as the abortion question, and just as controversial. Arguments for and against euthanasia, the question remains: does that person deserve to live?

I think most people will agree that the media is an outlet that is vigorously exploited in our highly technological society. In election years, especially, political propaganda in the form of ads and pamphlets abound. One can argue that this is just politics, but political rallies have the same affect for today's political candidates as they did for Hitler. They influence the mass mind; they target the group and through the experience they gain a foothold. Of course, the media does not just apply to politicians. Film, television and music producers slip their own "propaganda" or ideology into the production, thus planting ideas in the minds of the impressionable.

A glance at a list of current films reveals mostly action movies with lots of explosions, drama, and, of course, death. Modern music depicts violence in the form of death, physical abuse, and other wicked acts for a moral cause, vengeance, or even pure hatred. Children learn from technology (music, movies, etc) in the absence of a moral guide in the form of a parent. What should we expect from children, and even adults, when that is prominent in entertainment, and has been prominent for years? People have been desensitized to death and violence, thus devaluing human life. Furthermore, the inability to distinguish between reality and fiction encourages violent trends in society. When you feed a society murder and evil, how can you expect them to exhibit compassion and kindness?

The question in my mind which arises from all this is: where does the church stand? Practically every denomination, and sometimes individual congregations, will hold different ideas about ethics. Conservative denominations abhor abortion and euthanasia, where liberal denominations take the opposing stance. Fascist ideals have leaked into modern culture, and thus leaked into the church as well. Even the idea of the mass mind appeals to the church. Churches spewing questionable theology use the experience and the subsequent feelings of the individual to form a bond with the rest of the mass mind. One hears stories of pastors leading their flock to death, sin, or even questionable theology, for the same reasons the German people followed Hitler down an evil path. The masses are easily controlled by emotion and great promises. Not every religious fad leads to the same demise, but the tactic is the same and the opportunity is present.

Modern America is not prone to racism, Nationalism, or genocide (other than abortion) anytime soon, but this does not mean that she is immune to Fascism. Violence, the devaluation of human life, the media, an increasingly totalitarian government, and several other factors which I did not have the chance to discuss are crucial aspects of Fascism which Christians, and anybody who believes in morality and peace, should be wary of the increasing impact. I am not saying that all these traits are inherently Fascist, but together they can lead toward Fascism. Veith concludes the book with perhaps the most crushing sentences of the entire book: "Fascism is the modern world's nosalgia for paganism. It is a sophisticated culture's revolt against God." (p. 160) Fascism seeks not only to destroy Christianity, but to destroy what is good and positive, and replace it with death and evil.

I have done my best to remain objective by questioning modern society and how it views the same concepts that Fascist Germany employed. Knowingly, I have failed in this task. I am no expert on this subject and my knowledge is limited. If you have found my inadequate analysis insightful and interesting, I highly suggest reading Modern Fascism. I did not delve into many of the psychological and ideological points that Veith makes but I assure you that it is an excellent, enlightening read.

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Concordia Scholarship Today. St. Louis: Concordia, 1993.