Section III:
The Religious Medium
Introductory Remarks
Thomas' racket is religion. It provides the characteristic color of his speeches, the trademark by which he can be distinguished from competitors. As a minister, he can appear as an expert promoting the specific interests of a specific group. The basic idea of the whole framework is to appeal to people of orthodox and even bigoted religious leanings, mainly Protestant fundamentalists, and to transform their religious zeal into political partisanship and subservience. It is this transformation rather than the more or less obsolescent religious doctrines of Thomas which make it worthwhile to consider his theological manipulations. In Germany, religion played but a minor role in fascist propaganda, and it is a well known fact (though probably an overrated one in its actual importance) that fascism took a definite stand against practicing Protestants, as well as against Catholics. At any rate, the whole Nazi tradition is bound up with a certain tradition of monistic »free thinking« which in many respects is actually hostile to Christianity. Its belief in the unbridled and blind forces of nature, concomitant with the expansion of German imperialism, is the source of a decisive difference between the American and the German scene. American fascist propaganda shows a very strong affinity to certain religious movements, a fact that is testified by the major role played in fascist propaganda here by clergymen of various denominations.1
The pragmatic value of a survey of some of the more specific characteristic aspects of Thomas' theology lies, above all, in the possibility of making clear the background of his psychological technique. Many of the »devices« so far discussed consist of secularizations of religious stimuli which he expects still to operate within his listeners. The »fait accompli« technique is reminiscent of the Protestant doctrine of predestination; the »last hour« device, of the apocalyptic mood of certain sects; the dogmatic dichotomy between »those evil forces« and »the forces of God,« of Christian dualism; the exaltation of the humble folk, of the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Without this associational background and the considerable weight of authority carried with it, his whole propagandistic setup probably would not have been half as effective as it proved to be. It is therefore imperative to deal explicitly with the theological elements of the propaganda of Thomas and his ilk.
Fascist propaganda, by »secularizing« Christian motives, perverts a great many of them into their opposite. It is this process with which we are mainly concerned here. We shall try to bring out the contradiction between the religious stimuli applied by Thomas and his ultimate aims. His true purposes are, as we shall point out, antireligious. Thomas, the shrewd mass-psychologist, knows why he talks religion: he must reckon with the existence of religious feelings within his audience. If the groups which he specifically addresses were shown unambiguously that his aims plainly contradict the Christian ideals which he professes to uphold, these religious feelings might express themselves in the opposite direction, just as they did in Germany after the Nazis had shown their hand.
One qualification ought to be added. The use of religion for fascist purposes and the perversion of religion into an instrument of hate-propaganda, though providing the principal appeal, the trademark of Thomas, is by no means a unique phenomenon. Innumerable spiritual trends within our existing society point towards the establishment of some sort of totalitarian regime. There can be little doubt that every shade of prefascist ideology, be it religion or free-thinking, nationalism or pacifism, elite theories or folk ideologies, would be swallowed by the totalitarian stream which is little troubled by inconsistencies. Fascist rationality consists in the establishment of an omnipotent power system rather than in the enforcement of any »philosophy.« Thus, the importance of the dogmatic content of the religious medium as such must not be overrated. However, it is worth studying how such a concrete medium, apparently quite separate from fascist doctrine, is transformed to fit totalitarian purposes. Fascism could not possibly succeed without creeping into all the different and divergent forms of life. Thus, it has been effective in Germany with the Youth Movement and elderly homeowners, with bankrupt peasants and oversized industrial combines, with jobless, adventurous army officers and pedantic civil servants. The full comprehension of the magnetic power of totalitarianism necessitates an understanding of each of these aspects in its actual, concrete form.
One more reason for devoting attention to the religious medium of Thomas' propaganda should be mentioned. It is our assumption that the specific phenomenon of modern anti-Semitism is much more deeply rooted in Christianity than it would appear. It is true that the typical anti-Semite of our day, the highly rational, merciless, cynical, planning fascist, has as little belief in Christ as in anything else, except power. But it is no less true that the anti-Semitic ideas which form the spearhead of fascism everywhere could not possibly exercise such a strong appeal unless they had their strong sources, not only apart from, but also actually within Christian civilization. It would be difficult to exaggerate the role played by imagery of the Christ-killers, of the Pharisee, of the moneychangers in the temple, of the Jew who forfeited his salvation by denying the Lord and not accepting Baptism. In another study, we shall try to point out the ultimate theological reasons for anti-Semitism, and their place in society and history.2 Here we shall attempt to show these motives »in operation.« A survey of Thomas' theological tricks may reveal the specific, though partly unconscious historical memories which an anti-Semitic agitator calls back to life. Long-term countermeasures should be directed against these memories, no less than against obvious propaganda. Re-education should bring to explicit consciousness the inherited theological imagery of anti-Semitism and then cope with it. Only by cognition and refutation may these clinging prejudices and also the psychological mechanisms behind their obstinate survival be rendered impotent.
»Speaking with tongues« device
Apart from any specific theological contents, and possibly more effective propagandistically than any such contents, the religious medium makes itself felt throughout the psychological atmosphere of Thomas' speeches. This atmosphere consists, above all, of a certain unctuousness, a mixture of maudlin sentimentality and phony dignity which tends to lend its own aura to every sentence that he utters. Of course, this unctuousness may be attributed simply to Thomas' sermonizing attitude. It ought to be noted, however, that Hitler himself, who until recently very rarely referred to religion and then in the most general terms, has developed a similar unctuousness in speaking. The halo of »sacredness« has been emancipated from any specific religious content. It is taken over by arbitrarily chosen concepts, mostly of an animistic connotation, such as the ancestors, or the »dead of the movement.« This transfer is expressed in a general sentimentality of tone. This sentimentality, its blatant insincerity and phonyness, makes it most difficult for any intellectual to understand the effectiveness of fascist agitators. One should think, so runs the argument, that the simple people, with their feeling for the genuine, would be repulsed by tones which are reminiscent of the wolf in sheep's clothing. This assumption, however, is untrue. Anyone familiar with folk art will find, particularly among folk singers and folk actors, a very strong tendency toward exaggerated sentimentality and »false tones.« This can be accounted for in part by the people's desire for »strong colors« which, in a way, calls for overdoing things. But there is a much deeper-lying basis, namely the longing of the people for »feigning« things. It is this attitude which regards an actor primarily as a man who can »pretend« well, can disguise himself, and impersonate others. People expect a »performance« rather than the presentation of the »genuine.« They probably derive actual enjoyment from the false tones, because they regard them as indices of a »performance,« of imitations of some model, no matter whether the model itself is known to them or not. This probably can be explained by the complex of »oppressed mimesis« discussed in other sections of our project.[3] The technique of false tones is particularly evident in the records of Thomas' speeches, but it sometimes can be spotted even in the typed material. Typical are passages such as the following which uses the tone of the Kapuzinerpredigt:
I compare this great nation of ours, what she has been yonder through the years and what she is at the present hour and of the future and of the change which she is now undergoing, I compare her past with her present, and then I compare womanhood, the home, and the church. Great tears run down my face as I think of what my nation has been, can be.4
Perhaps a realization of the audience's sense of »performance« also accounts at least partly for the hundreds and hundreds of pages full of the purest nonsense which one can find in Thomas' and, it may be added, in Hitler's uncensored speeches. Here again, personal shortcomings fit marvelously with public demands. It is indeed possible that an orator like Thomas with an hysterical character structure and a complete lack of intellectual inhibitions is actually incapable of building up a logical and meaningful sequence of statements. However, it is probably just this uninhibited ability to speak without thinking, a capacity traditionally associated with certain types of salesmen and carnival barkers, which fulfills a desire of the audience. Here comes into play the ambivalent admiration of people who are repressed and psychologically »mute« for those who can speak. The Jews are blamed for being glib, but the anti-Semitic agitator and his audience long for this glibness and expect, in a way, that the anti-Semitic agitator can »speak like a Jew.« The ability to chatter is taken as proof of a mysterious gift of speech. Thus, the nonsense contained in all fascist speeches is not so much an obstacle as a stimulant in itself. It also serves to underscore the »dynamics« rather than any specific purposes of program. The dynamics of unrestrained rhetoric are perceived as an image of the dynamics of real events.
Maudlin ecstacy and senseless chatter, »to speak with tongues,« points strongly in the direction of evangelism and revivalism, which we shall discuss later in other respects. It is to this tradition, genuine or artificial, that Thomas refers, and from which he borrows the pattern of his general emotional religious attitude:
Oh, brothers, let us seek the holy God and the blessings of the holy God. If we will do that, our nation will be saved. If we will do that, the church will have a mighty revival of God whereby any day the people would see the holiness of God.5
He hopes that the grand days of revivalism will come back under the impact of his political »crusade«:
Is it any wonder that Communism has come in, that it takes hold of our homes? Where are the men that should be raising the banners? Where are the old leaders of the past? Why is it that we have not great evangelical revivals? When you think of the days of Alexander Moody, Billy Sunday, what has become of the evangelical fires in America?6
Detailed study of the literature on revivalism, such as the very revealing biography of Billy Sunday,[7] would yield a great many of the psychological devices of modern fascist propaganda, particularly those which consider the »fight against the devil« as a kind of public performance, and those which aim at a mimetic relationship between the preacher and his audience.
»Decomposition« device (Zersetzung)
In order to modify religious contents for mundane, political purposes, they must be 'neutralized.' No matter how deeply religious bigotry is related to reactionary social trends such as anti-Semitism, the content of religion must undergo certain changes in order to be brought 'down to earth.' The modern fascist agitator reckons with religious motives only as atomized carry-overs of past religion; he assumes that any consistent belief has been shattered. He surveys the debris of traditional religion, selects what suits his purposes, and eliminates all the rest. In spite of his bigoted phraseology, he approaches religion in a thoroughly pragmatic manner. He takes no definite religious stand – a shortcoming for which he tries to compensate by claiming a position above dogmatic disputes, and by advocating religious unity. His theology is consistent only in one respect: antiliberalism. Religious antiliberalism cloaks the political antiliberalism which he dares not advocate openly, just as religious authority functions psychologically as a substitute for the political authoritarianism to come. Within the framework of general antiliberalism, however, Thomas draws upon orthodoxy – in particular, Southern fundamentalism – as well as upon evangelism and revivalism. This theological attitude is furthered by the fact that these trends have many likenesses, since both are 'positive' in contrast to enlightened religion ('modernism') in this country. Thomas' nondiscriminatory attitude and his neutralization of religious teachings go so far, however, that he does not make the slightest objection to blatant contradictions between the religious trends he exploits. He sometimes poses as a defender of the Church, appears to identify himself with certain denominations, and rallies his 'crusaders' with the battle cry: the Church is in danger. But sometimes he professes extreme religious subjectivism and goes so far as to state that the time of denominations is over – apparently with an eye to some future religious 'integration' consummated by a totalitarian state. Of fundamentalism there is left little but the authoritarian claims as such, of sectarianism nothing but a rebellious gesture of hatred against established institutions, state and Church, an attitude which paves the way for fascist organization. This neutralization defines the framework of Thomas' manipulation of Protestantism.
In accordance with Thomas' general principle of evoking an 'against' rather than a 'pro' attitude, the sectarian motive is preponderant. But since in this country sects are traditional powers themselves, and the sectarian outlook is basic for the whole religious approach, his sectarianism, too, is capable of traditionalist, orthodox pretentions. It may very well be that the vestiges of religious authority and live religious feelings on which Thomas relies are due to the essentially 'sectarian' character of religion in America, in contrast to the established churches in Germany which were more or less state institutions. American sects, being closer, as it were, to the individual's personal beliefs, emotions and traditional particularities, have a stronger hold over the individual than they do in Germany. The American idea was to choose a religion of one's own, rather than to conform to a given one. This produces a much more intimate relationship between the individual and his religious behaviour patterns, even now when the dogmatic differences between the sects play but a minor role. The organizational hold of the sect over the family, its appeal to tradition, is much stronger than in Germany, where at least the Protestant Church has been reduced for centuries to a kind of 'social function.' The fascist agitator has to reckon with the presence of sectarian substance within the individual, secularized though the form may be. An agitator cannot simply oppose this substance; he must try to lead it into the channels of his own purposes. This, however, is not too difficult. Some of the more radical sects have developed within their own womb certain traces of repressiveness and even – under the name of apocalyptic trends – destructiveness. Thus they show a more real affinity to fascism than the big European denominations ever did. Moreover, the nucleus of all fascist movements was always somewhat like a sect, with all the features of intolerance, exclusiveness, and particularism. It is this deep-rooted similarity between the political and the religious sect upon which fascist propaganda in this country feeds.
This general 'sectarian' background paradoxically accounts for the virility of certain 'orthodox' stimuli. There is, for example, an ecclesiastical model for the 'desperate' situation which fascist propaganda always constructs. In Thomas, it is expressed in the complaint about the threatening disintegration of Christianity because of the spirit of rationalism. It is this negative aspect, this supposed danger of decomposition, which reveals Thomas' affinity to fundamentalism. According to Thomas the Church, interpreted as a kind of microcosm of the nation, is in dire jeopardy. The impending triumph of the devil in Communism, the 'progressive spirit' of the established denominations, and the plots of 'those evil forces,' all make for this disintegration of the Church. The situation calls for an 'integration' in the fascist sense.
Only during the past three years, according to the official Communist reports, they have enrolled between four and five million of our young people between the age of sixteen and thirty. They are pitting the growing youth of this nation against the Christian institutions, against the Church of the nation, against the Constitution. ... Today, freedom of religion prevails everywhere; so it will be only a few years before Christianity will fall to pieces.8
The attack upon 'freedom' within the Church, sounding definitely antisectarian, indicates clearly what is behind Thomas' phrases when he elsewhere professes to defend the liberties granted by the Constitution.
Thomas' fight against the supposed decomposition of traditional belief by religious modernism has a specific aspect. It is directed against the notion of progress and against biological materialism. Thomas apparently wanted to make friends with the fundamentalist Baptists, though his kind of propaganda suffered rebukes from official fundamentalism.
Here is a letter from the pastor of one of the Baptist churches here in California, a man that is doing an outstanding piece of work: 'I have been very much impressed with two things, the imminent peril that confronts us and, second, with your Christian stand. I will stand shoulder to shoulder to put down modernism and Communism.' I thank God for the word of this outstanding Christian minister that is back of us in our program.9
Thomas sympathizes with fundamentalism mainly because of its fight against the theory of evolution which represents to him the acme of subversive modernism.
Now, listen, there was a day when we believed that the Bible was the word of God, but today, we teach evolution and organic evolution. You know some educators used to laugh at William Jennings Bryan, but I want to tell you that Bryan was a prophet. William Jennings Bryan was a Christian ... Bryan attacked Darwinism. He attacked Nietzscheism. He attacked these things that he saw were undermining this nation of ours. . ... William Jennings Bryan saw that in another generation or two, that unless the evolutionary teaching that we simply came from the ape family, that we were only the result, my friend, of coming up through the anthropoidae, if that thing continued in this country, this nation of ours will, with her institutions, is bound to go down.10
It is noteworthy that Thomas attacks Darwinism not because it is untrue, but because of its supposedly bad moral effect – for purely pragmatic reasons. He conceives the religious orthodoxy which he advocates purely as a means of keeping discipline. But this leads to strange inconsistencies. As will be shown later, Thomas unconsciously falls back into animism by attributing a theological meaning to natural events such as earthquakes. Yet he consciously becomes indignant as soon as he is made aware of man's kinship with nature. Nothing irks the neo-pagan barbarians more than the idea that their ancestors might have been apes. Counterpropaganda, in analyzing the implicit philosophy of the fascists, should carefully point out their twisted relationship to nature. They adore nature as far as nature expresses domination and terror, as it is symbolized by the earthquake. They abhor nature as far as it is concomitant with the undisciplined and childlike, in other words, with everything that is not 'practical' in the sense discussed above. They favor the carnivorous, preying beast and despise the playful, harmless animal. They believe in the survival of the fittest, in natural selection, but hate the idea that their antics may be reminiscent of those of the monkey. This inconsistency is an index of the whole fascist attitude.
Another morsel Thomas snatches from authoritarian orthodoxy is the violent condemnation of the sinner and the idea that the difference between sinner and just has been established once and for all. The sectarian, not to speak of the heretic, is always prone to think of the salvation of the sinner, either by conversion or by the mystical conception of sin itself as of the precondition of redemption. Conversely, orthodox, established religion has little use for the sinner, that is, for anyone who has not surrendered himself completely to institutionalized religion. The sinner is visualized as definitely condemned. This trend once was associated with the organizing power of the church. Thomas borrows it with his own organization in the back of his mind. His predilection for the role of infallible judge makes itself felt in the selections rather than in the nature of his theological concepts, which are without exception taken from the New Testament. Roughly speaking, all the reconciliatory features of Christian teaching, including the idea of caritas, are omitted. But there is constant stress on the negative elements, such as the idea of the evil and eternal punishment, the defamation of the intellect, and the exclusiveness of Christianity against other religions, particularly Judaism. His Biblical citations are preferably taken from the Gospel of St. John, partly because of his general apocalyptic and mystical mood, partly because that Gospel lends itself more easily to anti-Semitic maneuvers than do the synoptics.
This selective technique enhances theologically the »sheep and bucks« device. This device is stressed in many analyses of fascist propaganda, such as in the above mentioned Coughlin study[11] under the title of »Name calling« and »Card stacking.« Hitler has pointed out in Mein Kampf that propaganda, in Order to be effective, must always paint the adversary as the arch enemy and one's own group as invested with everything noble and admirable. With Thomas, this device obtains a specific color by being tied up with religious dualism. He assumes that a transcendent struggle between the Kingdom of God and the realm of the Devil is taking place between the political powers of our time. He admits no intermediary processes or dialectics. This serves to brand the adversary as being »condemned« a priori, without recourse to argument. »What am I to believe? Believe that Christ vanquished the devils.«12 This dichotomy is applied directly to the political scene. The issue, he says, had already been decided in the New Testament. »Now folks, the battle is on. The forces of God and Americanism on one side, and the forces of darkness and Communism on the other.«13
The devil is coming down and working through men and institutions as never in the history of the world. Wherever you look, today, you see the dark clouds that are coming. Wherever you look, today, you see the prophetic Antichrist. At the present hour, there are millions and millions of men and women yonder in the dark land of Russia who are living under the control of the view of the Antichrist. My friend, God makes it very clear.14
The theological dualism is used to invest the political fight, in which Thomas is involved, with the dignity of a conflict taking place within the absolute. No proof is given that the Communists are devils or that Thomas is the partisan of God, except that he carries God's name in his mouth. He simply relies on the distinction of in- and outgroup. People he »takes in« are good, and the others are sons of the Devil. Any argumentation would only weaken this mechanism. Incidentally, his whole derogatory terminology, his allusion to »those evil forces« and so forth is borrowed from the language of theological dualism. Every penny that he gets for his crusade is transfigured into »ammunition« for the battle of Armageddon.
One peculiar aspect of the »sheep and bucks« device ought to be mentioned. Of course Thomas, clinging to Christian concepts, refers to the forces of God in terms of inwardness, of moral grandeur rather than of physical strength. However, in his esoteric speeches, he cannot refrain from particularly applauding some »big boy« who has pledged his support. But here occurs a twist, exemplified by the following quotation: »They were playing upon the jealousy of John, but he was a big man, not physically, but he was big from the standpoint of spirit.«15 The notorious German Jew-baiter, Streicher, whose body is abnormally small, used exactly the same wording in interpretations of his idea of national-socialist greatness. One need not evoke an Adlerian psychology in order to find in such statements distinct traces of Organminderwertigkeit, a feeling of inferiority stemming from physical weakness. Thomas himself is quite a vigorous man, but he is a keen enough connoisseur of his listeners to manipulate this element of their psychology.
The vague idea of a »conservative revolution,« discussed in Section II, is rather concretely expressed in Thomas' theological ventures. We have seen that manipulated orthodoxy corresponds to the conservative authoritarian element. The quasi-revolutionary element is expressed by the revivalist, sectarian leaning of Thomas.
The non-conformism from which the American sects originally derived brought them into a certain opposition against centralized institutions such as »the Church« and »the state.« This falls well in line with fascist ideology. The combination of an apparently rebellious or radical attitude, as in the sects, with authoritarian, ascetic, and repressive tendencies, parallels a familiar structure of the fascist mentality. National Socialism in particular has taken an »anti-state« attitude, and favors such concepts as the nation, the folk, or the »party.« The state is regarded merely as an instrument for obtaining certain power positions. Thus it is deprived of any »objectivity« which might safeguard those who are to be oppressed.16 This anti-state attitude is taken up by American fascism and becomes an »anti-government« attitude, nourished by the hostility of American reactionaries to the New Deal. Here, the old sectarian, anticentralistic spirit supplies a useful weapon for the fight. Yet if the fascists have their way, the actual result would be an enormous strengthening of the state authority – a fact that should be pointed out to all American particularists.
Such a general attitude is reflected by the Nazi hostility to the big established churches. In Thomas' speeches, this antagonism often takes the form of an attack against the large institutionalized denominations, such as the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians, against whom he upholds his »subjectivistic,« revivalist, »dynamic« concepts. He professes to stand for the living faith against institutionalized religion, just as the Nazis praise the »movement« against the State.17 This stimulus appeals to a deeply rooted discontent with all the supposedly »objective,« impersonal institutions of our society. Their objectivity appears to the masses as being rather problematic anyway. The struggle against institutions is exemplified by the present fight against »bureaucratism.« The aim is not so much to achieve a social justice which appears to be jeopardized by institutionalism, as to call forth those violent instincts which were held at bay by legal and institutional order, and which are now let loose in order to become instruments of the power-hunger of the dictatorial clique. It has often been pointed out that monastic orders and sects were originally heretic movements, which only afterwards became integrated into the Christian framework. One is perhaps justified in assuming that an undercurrent of paganism, of a non-Christianized, non-civilized »religion of nature« is an intrinsic element of all sectarianism, no matter how ascetic and passionately Christian it may appear on the surface. At any rate, revivalist tradition is taken over and transformed by Thomas, in such a way that the destructive and naturalistic elements of anti-institutionalism are brought to the fore. While overplaying the Christian, he actually appeals to non-Christian instincts by his opposition to established, institutionalized religion. Thus, his racketeering in religion may be justly interpreted as a step towards the liquidation of religion, an unavoidable course for any totalitarian regime. This is why his manipulation of religious themes is more than a mere obsolete device to catch backward people. Behind his home-spun theology looms the spectre of a streamlined doctrine in which politics and ideologies are bluntly integrated in the name of »God, home, and the native land.«
The basis for the fascist manipulation of religious subjectivism for political, ultimately antireligious purposes is the stressing of personal experience as against any objectified doctrine. Perhaps subsidiary to this is his emphasis on the apocalyptic mood. Some quotations from Thomas may illustrate his use of these elements:
Note that Jesus Christ places his words ... not in the old Testament words, not in the words of some writer, but his words ..... Now, I know, my friend, that this is true. I know it as the result of a number of reasons. I know it because of a personal experience that I had some twenty odd years ago with this living personality that we speak of as Jesus Christ. Now, I know it. I say to you from a personal experience. I believe that thing that Jesus has said here, that is I believe his word, if I expect his word, that I have here and now as a present-tense possession, eternal life. I know that because my life was immediately changed. The things that I loved from the standpoint of the flesh, I immediately hated. In other words, there was a complete transformation of my whole life and heart.18
It is significant that the emphasis upon Christ's personality and the subsequent »conversion« of the individual is brought into distinct antagonism with the Scriptures. By implication, the Old Testament is condemned as a sort of institutionalized, torpid religion. This attitude has recurred throughout Christian tradition since the Gnostics. Moreover, the appeal to immediate, personal religious experience means a weakening of rational control, as represented by coherent religious doctrines. Thomas insists upon the directness and immediacy of his personal relationship to God in order to exclude any interference from outside agencies: »God makes it very plain that no man should teach you because you have the Holy Spirit to teach you. I have insisted in my life upon being led directly by God himself.«19 It is easy to see how sectarian religiosity can be turned into an attack upon the Church and thus, ultimately, upon any organized, objective religion. The wish to be »led directly by God himself« can easily be misused as a justification for the most arbitrary decisions of the individual – just as Hitler referred to his »inspiration« when he committed his fateful error in the Russian campaign. Thomas' appeal to personal religious experience is bound up with anti-Semitic innuendo:
As I told you yesterday morning, membership in the Synagogue was synonymous with certain social rights of the day. Unless you belonged to the Synagogue, you were nobody. You were excluded from society as a whole. You did not have any ecclesiastical rights, no religious rights, no civil rights, and very few moral rights. Don't you see that they would exclude, and they had a monopoly upon the life and heart of the people of that day. The most devilish thing that this world knows anything about is where men have deliberately monopolized the power of God and the Gospel of God.20
The concept of personal conversion, as contrasted to institutionalized religion, is strengthened by the individual's belief in the imminence of a world catastrophe, of the »last days of the Church.« This is the theological, revivalist basis of the »last hour« device. Faced with the last judgment, the individual must think of God and of his own immediate relationship to God, rather than of the Church to which he belongs. As already mentioned, Thomas in this respect does not shrink from appealing to the crudest superstition – a striking symptom of the retrogression of his kind of revivalism into a sort of mythological nature religion.
The lines of prophesy are met. ... I don't want you to become alarmed over the earthquakes we have had lately in Southern California (gives explanation of earthquakes of California as due to falls). Now, it used to be that we thought earthquakes were confined to Southern California, but we are finding across the world earthquakes, today, with a tremendous intensity and extensiveness. ... Since 1901, over a million people have been killed as a result of earthquakes alone.21
Here, the interconnection between Thomas' terror technique and his religious »revivalism« can be grasped easily. The two major elements of this revivalism, subjectivism and Chiliasm, tend to »weaken« the individual's resistance. The appeal to »personal experience,« as opposed to the doctrines of the Church, practically amounts to the encouragement of giving oneself up to one's emotions.22 The idea that the world is nearing its end frightens the individual, who, in order to save his soul, is expected to be ready to do everything that he is told, without much critical thinking. Thus, the revivalist attitudes, originally conceived as an expression of religious liberty, are plainly put into the service of the fascist ideal of blind obedience.
The transformation of religious subjectivism into fascist partisanship in Thomas' propaganda does not take place in terms of politics, for he is much too cautious to touch upon anything so firmly established as the American Constitutional Rights. Instead, he concentrates on his own narrow, quasi-professional field, church affairs. One may say that his attitude towards church problems, although never quite outspoken and somewhat confused, serves as an indirect model for what he secretly wants to take place within the American nation.
He conveys totalitarian articles of faith to his audience by discussing church matters with them. He leaves it up to them to translate these statements into more drastic political terms. His revivalistic antagonism towards the established denominations is the theological vehicle that allows him to build up this »model« on apparently purely religious grounds.
Here, the »unity« trick triumphs. Thomas attacks »partisanship« and »disunity« under the name of denominationalism:
I believe that the day of denominations is practically a thing of the past. I mean there will be no further advancement along the lines of the denominations. I refer to Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, but listen, there is a great advancement today of a vital Christianity, and it is coming primarily as a result of the radio.23
The contrast between »vitality« and »denominationalism« is no less characteristic than the statement that this revitalization is due to radio, which is a centralistic technical device inseparably bound up with modern monopolization of public communications. The talk about »revitalization« corresponds to the idea that the existing religious denominations by their very institutionalization have ceased to be living forces, in other words, that the masses have lost their faith in those basic irrational doctrines of religion without which Protestantism cannot be conceived.
You know, my friend, organized religion that denies a supernatural will, will always persecute the supernatural, and so you had yonder a dead religion that denied the supernatural of God; and because they had that, they persecuted your Lord and my Lord unto death.24
It is not too difficult for Thomas' listeners to interpret this religious statement in terms of the two-party system and the »supreme« idea of the nation as such.
The logical sequel to such confused outbreaks would be the advocacy of strong enforcement of law against these anarchic spectres that he incessantly raises. It is a characteristically fascist twist in his propaganda, that just the opposite occurs. While deploring lawlessness, corruption, and anarchy, not only is he »antilegalistic« but he even attacks law as such. This procedure, of course, is parallel to the well-known fascist device of crying wolf whenever a central democratic government shows any signs of strength. Their talk about the dictatorship of the government is simply a pretext for introducing their own dictatorship. Thomas' attitude towards law is highly ambivalent; he complains of the existing lawlessness as well as of the existing laws, in order to prepare psychologically the ground for some sort of non-»legalistic« rule.
Things are going wrong in this country of ours because we have forgotten God and his righteous law. We have trampled his standards of conduct and rule of judgment underfoot, and in its place we have enacted a host of human regulations. There is no dearth of law, today, my friends; this is the greatest age of legislative enactments to regulate man's conduct ever known in the history of this country. It is estimated that human government has made thirty-two million laws. There were ten thousand new laws placed on the statute books of the federal and state governments of the United States during 1924; there were thirteen thousand placed upon our statute books in 1928; fourteen thousand placed in 1930, and the last two years have multiplied these figures as a result of the New Deal which is the reign of law. But the greatest age of laws is also the greatest age of lawlessness. The criminal record shows that crime is increasing at a staggering rate. The direct cost of crime in this nation has reached fifteen billion dollars every year.25
The figures mentioned in this diatribe are, of course, utterly fantastic. There is neither any basis for the estimate of thirty-two million laws made by »human government« (whatever that may be), nor the slightest corroboration of the astronomical figure of the »cost of crime« in America. To operate with fantastic figures is an established Nazi habit. The apparent scientific exactitude of any set of figures silences resistance against the lies hidden behind the figures. This technique which might be called the »exactitude of error« device is common to all fascists. Phelps, for instance, has similar fantastic figures about the influx of refugees into this country. The greatness of the figure, incidentally, acts as a psychological stimulant, suggesting a general feeling of grandeur which is easily transfered to the speaker.
His stress upon instinct against reason is concomitant to his emphasis on spontaneous behavior against laws and rules. Thus he promotes a spirit of »action« against the protection granted the minority by any kind of legal order. Indirectly, the antilegalistic and anti-institutional spirit of Thomas is strongly indicated by the way in which he exalts women. To choose one example among many: when praising Martha, he points out the unconventional spirit of this practical- saint, denouncing the sphere of convention by implication. Thomas exalts thereby an attitude which within the framework of his speeches is destructive, although in its highest sense it may be truly superior to conventionality. To Thomas unconventionality means, in the last analysis, readiness to break the law.
Martha, therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him. It was unconventional for a woman to go and meet a man but Martha, bless her soul and her heart, was unconventional. She refused to abide by a foolish convention that strangled the manifestation of her love, of her devotion.26
Officially, Thomas defends the home and the family and violently persecutes those who supposedly wish to »legalize abortion.« Yet such statements come very close to the code of sex morals introduced by the Nazis who, while officially defending the sacred old institutions, encourage promiscuity as long as it helps to breed more Volksgenossen. Thomas' attack on law and convention does not aim at freedom, it aims at the individual's subjection, not to any independent legal or moral standards, but to the immediate dictation of those in command, who can easily dispense with any objective regulative ideas. He extols Martha's love in order to cloak the idea of obedience to commands. Such obedience would actually entail nothing but hatred.
Revivalist religious subjectivism glorifies the »spirit.« Yet this exaltation of the spirit should not be taken too seriously. It is considerably softened by a twist closely related to Thomas' intermittant attacks on the established churches: his denunciation of the Pharisees as the personification of religious institutionalism and faith in the »letter.« The denunciation of the Pharisees transfers hatred of law and institution to hatred of the intellect and the intellectuals, and of the Jews, with whom he indirectly identifies the Pharisees. He very cautiously avoids explaining concretely what he means by spirit, but he certainly implies a general enthusiasm and willingness to do things rather than any specific capacity of the mind. The Biblical preference for those who are weak in spirit, expressed in Jesus' fight against the proud Pharisees, is exploited for his own ends. There are unending invectives of this type:
My friend, this age has rejected the teaching of Jesus. Now, the Church, the organized Church, has rejected the teaching of Jesus. The Church that has adopted the teaching yonder of the hierarchy of Israel, they have gone back to the intellect. Now, you know, all you ought to know, that men by searching cannot find out God. Your little puny intellect will not be able to find out the ministry of God.27
I call your attention to the fact that Jesus never revealed his personality and his truth to men and women whose spirit was not right, and will you think that out with me for a moment? To whom did he reveal the mighty truths? ... Jesus revealed himself to that woman because the woman was simple enough to believe the stories that Jesus was telling the world.28
The Christian idea is that truth must be all-embracing, must reach even the downtrodden. Thomas perverts it into the idea of appealing to those »simple enough to believe the stories,« because they are the least capable of offering any resistance to untruth. This perversion, of course, has taken place throughout the history of Christianity, but only today when fascism adapts Christianity to its pragmatic purposes, has it been expressed so frankly and cynically.
In this respect, Thomas has a keen understanding of his affinity for his namesake, Martin Luther, whom he praises for having been, like St. Augustine, »just an obscure man« who would never have been chosen by »a group of intellectual leaders.«29 In fact, the defamation of the intellect is derived from the Augustinian and Lutheran tradition and is averse to Calvinism. It is hardly accidental that Thomas tends to side with Luther rather than with Calvin.
The Pharisees are particularly suitable objects for Thomas' intellect-baiting because they combine intellectual erudition and status as representatives of established religion. Moreover, their hostility to Christ makes it easy for Thomas to designate them as the vanguard of the Antichrist. The stimulus involved here is a resentment against the intellect. Those who must suffer, and have neither the strength nor the will to change their situation on their own impetus, always have a tendency to hate those who point out the negative aspects of the situation, that is, the intellectuals, rather than those who are responsible for their sufferings. This hostility is made the more intense by the fact that intellectuals are exempt from hard labor, without being in possession of actual commanding power. Therefore, they excite envy, without simultaneously calling forth deference. With Thomas' particular audience, anti-intellectualism has a particularly good chance of success. The Sermon on the Mount is transformed into an ideology for those who, while resenting their own hampered mentality, spitefully cling to and exalt this mentality.
This spitefulness is turned against the outsider, thus preparing the way for anti-Semitism. For the Jews are theologically close to Christianity without having submitted to it.
Now, you people, you see that Jesus Christ was a good man, that he was a chief rabbi of his day, that he was a great leader, but you refuse to acknowledge that he was God in human flesh. Remember that he cannot lie. Remember that the integrity of the Scriptures either stand or fall upon the evidence that is presented (»that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father«). My friend, you cannot approach God except through Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I know that is pretty hard on some of you people that have been taught otherwise. There is no way by which any man or woman may be saved except through Jesus Christ, and unless you honor the Son, you cannot honor the Father.30
Since the main difference between Christianity and Judaism concerns the recognition of the Son, this speech is, by implication, directed against the Jews. Incidentally, the »messenger« device is furthered by this particular theological doctrine. Of course, the stressing of this difference would not in itself be anti-Semitic. It becomes so in view of the fact that Thomas makes very few positive references to the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments. The idea that Christ did not come to dissolve, but to fulfill the law, that is, the Old Testament, is played down by Thomas. To him – and here he is certainly no fundamentalist – the New Testament is rather the denial of the Old:
There cannot be any immortality of the human soul according to the standard of the New Testament, according to the word of the living God, apart from the revelation and the work that Jesus Christ of Nazareth accomplished upon Calvary cross and from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathia.31
Instead of acknowledging the Old Testament, Thomas denounces it indirectly by putting a particular onus upon those who are »close« to Christianity without actually subscribing to it. Thus, by inference, he denounces the Jews.
Satan always attempts to reach the children of God by some member to that child of God. Satan knows that it is useless to make a direct attack upon the work of the living God, but he always attempts to reach that individual by someone that is close to that man or woman. Now, that was true of Judeah. You remember in the fourth chapter of Matthew, where it says that »Jesus vanquished the devil.« If you turn over to the book of Luke, you will find yonder in the hour when the Last Supper was being held, Satan came and entered into Judas Iscariot. He said, I cannot reach him directly, but I must ask the death of Jesus Christ through someone that is close to him.32
This whole passage, particularly the associational link between the words Judeah, Judas, Jews, points in the direction of the whole »anti-Pharisees« device by its identification of the Jews with the Christ-killer.
Religious trickery in operation
It is our basic thesis that religion, while being used as a net to ensnare a certain group of the population, is also transformed into a technique of political manipulation. Thomas contends in one passage that »Satan has not the power, today, over the Christian, for he has met his Waterloo at Calvary.«33 This figure of speech, subordinating religious salvation to an earthy event, is symbolic of Thomas' treatment of religion. One may say that he transforms Calvary into an eternal Waterloo, so that his religion deteriorates into a system of metaphors for mundane »battles,« for political violence. His sophistic art of interpreting the Bible for the sake of ideas which are essentially incompatible with the spirit of Christianity often amounts to caricature. The complete cynicism with which he handles Biblical stories shows that he is actually concerned only with the residues of religious prestige and authority. He has no interest whatsoever in the concrete substance of religion. It goes without saying that the subordination of religious ideas and religious language to political ends deeply affects the religious ideas themselves. Calvary, by being called a Waterloo, loses that quality of uniqueness which constitutes the faith in the crucifixion as the act of redemption. The very metaphor, apart from any further dogmatic consequences, must have a ring of impiety to any Christian. It is essential to point out those Christians whom fascist propaganda intends to reach, that fascist manipulation of the dogma is intrinsically blasphemous.
The blasphemous element becomes even more blatant with regard to the contents of the Biblical stories Thomas uses. For example, the supernatural meaning of the Biblical concept of »feeding the people« is perverted into an expression of a merciless and hard-boiled attitude in earthly matters.
Our Lord, Jesus Christ, is not a bread-king. He is not feeding people for the sake of feeding them. »Whatsoever you do in word and in deed, do all to the glory of God.« You know, my friend, that you and I make a tremendous mistake, and we do that person more harm than good when we confer upon that individual something he does not need. It does not matter what it is, whether it is the dole, whether it is free money, and we do for that individual that which that individual can do for himself. You rob that individual of the blessing of life. You rob that individual of the joy of working. We have got to end our present situation ... in some way, manner, or form. If we do not, we will continue to pauperize millions of people in this country of ours.34
Likewise, the idea that Jesus is the bread of life is perverted into a denunciation of other sources of the spirit, namely, autonomous thought in general and ideas of reform in particular. Characteristically, however, Thomas, while attacking enlightenment, does not dare to attack technology at the same time, for the latter is a presupposition and a living element of his own propaganda technique.
My, I wish we could recall America to know this today [sic]. Many people are running to this thing and to that thing, running to this quack and to that quack, and they are getting nowhere. Here is the true bread of life. I am sure that your soul knows that. How many people throughout the world are trying to find truth, the true aims in life besides Jesus Christ. Attend to God. Apart from him, you cannot get great truth. I would to God, that we would get this great truth. Don't you wish that education would get back. I thank God, that we have a mighty God. Thank God for the printing press. Thank God for the newspaper. Thank God today, and take courage, for our God is still on his throne, and I believe that we are firing a shot that will be heard around the world.35
The confusion of these sentences faithfully reflects the entanglement of ideas of a bigot running berserk. He advocates both the »good old times« and the radio which gives him the opportunity to speak.
Faith, to Thomas, is not only a substitute for changing the world; it is the medicine to counteract any change at all. Moreover, all change is automatically pigeonholed by Thomas as Communism.
Can you not see that unless we exalt the holiness of our God, that unless we proclaim the justice of God in this world of ours, unless we proclaim the fact of a heaven and of a hell, unless we proclaim the fact that without the remission, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Cannot you see that only Christ and God are dominant and that revolution will ultimately take this nation of ours.36
The transformation of Christian doctrines into slogans of political violence could not be cruder than in this passage. The idea of the Sacrament, the »shedding of blood« of Christ, is straightforwardly interpreted in terms of »shedding of blood« in general, with an eye to a political upheaval. The actual shedding of blood is advocated as necessary because the world has supposedly been redeemed by the shedding of Christ's blood. Murder is invested with the halo of a Sacrament. Thus the last remainder of the sacrificed Christ is virtually »Judenblut muß fließen.« The crucifixion is degraded into a symbol of the pogrom. There are strong reasons for believing that this absurd transformation plays a greater role in traditional Christian imagery than appears on the surface.
The most effective link between Thomas' theology and his politics is the idea of the »faith of our fathers.« This idea may be called essentially anti-Christian. The claim of Christianity is a claim to truth and not to traditional acceptance, so that he who believes only because his forefathers have believed is actually not a believer at all. Incidentally, the idea of the forefathers carries overtones of an ancestor worship and a mythological religion of nature which contradict the very essence of Christianity. Yet this »naturalistic« element of Christianity can be found throughout Protestantism (where it substitutes for the Catholic concept of the living Church). Even the most subjectivistic Lutheran thinkers, such as Kierkegaard, have made use of this idea. Paternalistic authority always functions to keep at bay those whose belief in the truth of the Christian dogma itself is shattered. This device enforces Christianity by worldly, extraneous means, in the last analysis, by the controls of the patriarchal family. At the same time, it sounds highly respectable, humble, and pious. This appeal is the backbone of Thomas' orthodoxy, opening the road for an interpretation which can easily be understood in terms of aggressive nativism.
That Book that has united the souls of millions of men and women everywhere, that old Book that our fathers and our mothers loved, that old Book that they have revered and cared for, and that we, today, this generation now living, we too are perusing the old Book, so as we look into its sacred pages, this afternoon, bring unto us the memories of the past and the hope of the future and prepare us for that heaven whither our fathers and our mothers have traveled all of these long years.37
The next stage is the ambiguous definition of America as a »Christian nation« by which Thomas refers to a supposed decision of the Supreme Court which pronounced such a definition. Thomas strongly implies the exclusion of the Jews from the American community.
Listen, America began as a Christian nation. Whatever has developed in this nation of ours in the way of progress is the result of Americanism, and when you speak of America, you have got to speak of Christianity because they are both commensurate.38
And here Thomas utters the call for the »right sort of people« – evidently the same characters who paved the way for Nazism in Germany:
I call upon you teachers, this afternoon, to remember that you hold in your hand the future of America. »As the Twig is bent, so cometh a tree, and as the tree falleth, so it will lie.« We need teachers to teach the great principle of life. We need to declare the great truth of God. We need judges upon our benches who will remember the landmarks of their fathers are still here.39
It is hardly necessary to point out that these teachers and judges are expected to be severe. The traditionalistic stimulus in Thomas is so strong that in spite of his supposed hatred for denominations and conventions, he maintains that »the only way to worship God is to go a place dedicated to worship.«40 Such a statement, which is in accordance with Roman Catholic teaching rather than with the Protestant doctrine of »universal priesthood« (Allgemeines Priestertum), is another index of Thomas' use of Christianity as a mere analogy for his worldly authoritarianism.
It is but one step from worship of the »fathers« and a »Christian« America to arrogant patriotism: »We are dependent upon our God and those who believe in this country and in this Bible and in your family and in your flag and in these freedom-loving institutions that have been handed down to us.«41 Thomas' ultimate desire for a military pattern, for an authoritarian organization is hardly disguised in a »hymn« which his boys sing.
Where are the boys of the old brigade,
Who fought with us side by side
And blade to blade.
They fought till they fell and died
Who so ready and undismayed
Who so merry and true.
Where are the boys of the old brigade
And where is the land we knew?
It was steadily shoulder to shoulder,
And steadily blade to blade
Ready in song
Marching along
Were the boys of the old brigade.
Praise be their memory wherever they are;
They were the comrades we shall ever love.42
While, on the surface, military symbolism is used in order to illustrate religious ideals, religion itself for Thomas functions as the symbol of fascism. The Christian American Crusade promises both revivalism and orthodox Christianity. Their common denominator in propaganda is fascist organization.
Fußnoten
1 Such as, for instance, [Gerald B.] Winrod, Coughlin, Jeffers, and Hubbard.
2 Cf. Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, »Elemente des Antisemitismus,« Dialektik der Aufklärung (Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1947), pp. 199–244 [GS 3, s. S. 192ff.].
[3 Cf. Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialektik der Aufklärung, passim.]
4 June 27, 1935.
5 July 10, 1935.
6 July 2, 1935.
[7 William Thomas Ellis, Billy Sunday: The Man and His Message (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1936).]
8 July 3, 1935.
9 May 25, 1935.
10 May 26, 1935.
[11 Lee and Lee, The Fine Art of Propaganda, pp. 26–46; 95–104.]
12 June 1, 1935.
13 June 12, 1935.
14 June 28, 1935.
15 May 23, 1935.
16 Cf. Franz Neumann, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1942), passim, e.g.: »In the new (Nazi) theory, the state has no monopoly of political decisions. Schmitt concludes that the state no longer determines the political element but is determined by it, that is, by the party« (p. 66). Neumann goes as far as to deny that the German political System is at all a »state« (pp. 467–470).
17 Cf. »Movement« trick [above, pp. 41–42].
18 June 7, 1935.
19 June 18, 1935.
20 July 2, 1935.
21 June 13, 1935.
22 Cf. »Emotional release« device [above, pp. 16–20].
23 April 25, 1935.
24 June 29, 1935.
25 April 21, 1935.
26 July 9, 1935.
27 June 20, 1935.
28 July 3, 1935.
29 May 31, 1935.
30 June 6, 1935.
31 June 7, 1935.
32 July 13, 1935.
33 May 24, 1935.
34 June 12, 1935.
35 June 13, 1935.
36 July 13, 1935.
37 June 23, 1935.
38 May 26, 1935.
39 June 2, 1935.
40 July 6, 1935.
41 June 16, 1935.
42 July 7, 1935.