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.
