Section IV:
Ideological Bait
Introductory Remarks
As it has been pointed out, the concrete political content of Thomas' speeches plays but a minor role compared with his method. His psychological »softening up« of his listeners in the fascist sense does not develop any coherent political program or any coherent critique of existing social and political conditions. His whole attitude is thoroughly »atheoretical.« This is due partly to his contempt for the intellectual capacity of his audience, partly to the idea of »being practical,« and partly, perhaps, to the actual absence of a clear-cut program in Thomas' mind. Like most of today's fascist agitators, he is essentially guided by a keen sense of imitation of the famous and successful models of modern authoritarianism, rather than by political or sociological reflections. This atheoretical attitude has been noted since the early days of the Mussolini regime. It may have a deep basis in the pattern of authoritarianism itself. It cannot be simply explained by the cynical, relativistic contempt for truth and for its expression in theory, shown by the uninhibited power-politician. It is rather due to theory in itself, no matter what its contents may be. The very fact of consequent, coherent and consistent thinking carries a certain weight of its own, a certain »objectivity,« even if it starts from the most arbitrary presumptions. This objectivity makes theory a problematic tool in the eyes of the fascist, for the reason that thinking per se refuses to become completely a tool. Theory as such, the pursuit of autonomous logical processes, offers a certain guarantee to those at whom the fascist wants to strike – it allows them, as it were, to be heard. Hence, theory is essentially taboo to the fascist. His realm is that of unrelated, opaque, isolated facts, or rather, images of facts. The more they are presented as isolated, the more some selected favorite topics draw the whole attention of both the agitator and the listeners, the better for the fascist. He may, with good chance of success, simultaneously but atheoretically, hit at both the Jewish banker and the Jewish radical. If he would try theoretically to explain the interconnection between the notions, he would meet the greatest difficulties. He would be forced to take resort to the most unconvincing constructs – something which happens often enough with fascist propaganda. Thomas, however, tries to dodge this danger as far as possible, and to stick to some few well-tested and thoroughly popular tunes. This may partly explain the scarcity of motives not only in Thomas but in most of his type. It requires special countermeasures, such as »relating« the isolated topics in order to explode them, concentrating the arguments on the danger spots, or perhaps, conversely, bringing to the fore those facts and structures which are omitted in the fascist argument. Whatever Thomas does is in order to hit at certain »nerve points« of political controversy, which are particularly touchy and from the manipulation of which he hopes to get quick emotional returns. The political topics he chooses are those which he expects to be most important psychologically, that is to say, those which are most heavily laden with effects. These are Communism, the Administration and in particular its unemployment policy, the Jews, and certain aspects of foreign policy.
It has been stated over and over again that the attack on the danger of Communism and radicalism is one of the fundamentals of fascist propaganda. This line of attack has proved most effective in Hitler's case. Naturally all the paraphernalia of »red-baiting« are to be found in Thomas' speeches. For example, he employs the device of denouncing anyone as a Communist who disagrees with his own ideas. This is mainly achieved by the use of the term »radical,« which in fact can mean anyone who follows a progressive line, but which has a connotation of revolutionary subversiveness, highly useful for Thomas' propaganda.
The anti-Communist arguments common to fascists all point in one direction, namely, that Communism is an immediate danger, that the traditional institutions of property, family, and religion must be defended by immediate counteraction. One thing, however, is remarkable. Thomas never deals with Communism as it actually is. He attacks neither the doctrines of dialectical materialism, of which he apparently knows nothing, nor the practical policy of the Communist party, nor the real conditions in Russia. He never touches upon fundamental questions, such as whether a classless society is possible under contemporary conditions, or whether the lot of the masses has improved in Russia. The ideals crystalized by Marxian theory are never scrutinized. Instead, he builds up the imagery of Communism as a »bogy,« which exists only to terrify people with the vision of their immediate destruction. He does not attack the Marxian system, except in vaguest generalizations concerning such matters as materialism. But he tells atrocity stories of an utterly fantastic nature, similar to the »Protocols of the Elders of Zion.« He fights against windmills or, if one prefers the term, he builds up a paranoic system which he later attacks. This mechanism is of particular importance, since it shows the deep-rooted tendency in fascism to attack images rather than the reality they may represent. The foes of fascism are largely of a fictitious nature for two reasons. On the one hand, the reality of groups such as the Communists or the Jews would probably not provide sufficient objects of hatred. If Thomas were to discuss Communist theory as it really is, the effect might well be that his listeners would become positively interested in the theory. On the other hand, he consciously or unconsciously reckons with a »paranoic« attitude among his listeners, a kind of persecution mania which craves the confirmation of its bogies. Knowing that he can get hold of his followers only by satisfying this craving, he cuts his imagery to fit their psychological desires. The general scheme of this imagery is the characterization of Communism as a conspiracy. This concept being a mirrored reflection of the conspiratorial character of his own racket.
We lay particular emphasis on this aspect since it is not only the pattern of red-baiting but also, to an even higher degree, of anti-Semitism. The unrecognizable and nauseating caricatures contained in the »Stürmer« are characteristic of the whole fascist approach. The psychological attack is directed not so much against the Jews as they actually are, as against a mythical picture of the Jews, an amalgam of observations, remnants of an archaic imagery, and projections of psychological drives. In olden times, a magic picture was destroyed in order to kill the man it represented. Today we may almost say that the converse is true – the Jews themselves are destroyed in order to harm the image. Therefore, it may often be not so appropriate to defend the Jews against objections which finally aim at a fetish, as to point out the fetishistic nature of the fascist concept of »The Jew.« It is important to show the elements of this fetish and their relative independence of reality, to examine its psychological function, etc. Only thus may this image be dissolved effectively. It will remain largely impervious to any defense of the actual Jews1 since anti-Semitism is based less upon Jewish peculiarities than upon the mentality of the anti-Semite.
The transformation of Communism into a sinister conspiracy is achieved by passages such as the following:
I wonder if you people know that Stalin, Joseph Stalin, last year, now get it, last year, he published a plan for the destruction of the United States of America. This information was passed on to all of the Communist destruction organizers and secretaries.2 Now read it. And then review in your mind what has taken place and what is increasingly taking place all over this nation. You note the action of certain Congressmen. You note the action of certain Senators. You note the action of certain leaders in our country. Then, you decide for yourself the seriousness of the hour. Here are the Devil's suggestions: Now, I am going to give them to you as far as I can during the next few minutes. (This passage is evidently an appetizer, indicating that he expects his listeners to get quite a kick out of what he is going to reveal to them.) He (Stalin) says in the realm of religion: »By philosophy and mysticism, by the development of liberal cults and by the furtherance of atheism, we must destroy all Christian creeds.«3
The pure nonsense of this quotation fits well with the fantastic allegations by which it is preceded.
As far as Marxian theory is concerned, Thomas copes with it in a simple way:
Listen, my friend, what may we expect when we teach our children that man has no soul, when we teach them such doctrines as Karl Marx's Manifesto. This has prepared the world for the final teaching of Communism, my friends, we are going into hell in this country of ours. We have allowed this teaching, this terrible teaching to saturate this country of ours. It has saturated the whole home (!), it has saturated the school. We have allowed our curriculum to be based upon this hypothesis that man has no soul and that by organic evolution, by some way or another man came and all life came upon the earth. ... We must turn quickly from this teaching or we are lost ... that is teaching the foundation stones of Communism.4
It is significant that in describing Communist teachings neither the concept of class struggle nor of capitalistic economy is even mentioned. The emphasis is laid upon biological theories which never played any decisive role in Marxian theory, or upon wholly imaginative attributions to Marx.
»Communists and bankers« device
Thomas' most important horror story refers to supposed plots intended to produce financial crises and bankruptcy. When he discusses the Communist attitude towards property, he does not bring in the concept of socialization, but only that of a manipulation by which people lose all their possessions. The typical fascist identification of the »Communist conspiracy« with the »bankers' conspiracy« is useful primarily for the sake of anti-Semitism.
A few years ago men met. Let me give you the plan and the program. Listen to what they say: »We have opened the arenas in different states where revolts are now occuring, and disorder and bankruptcy will shortly appear everywhere.« That was just prior to 1929, that we saw this thing approaching the U.S. My friend, nation after nation is collapsing. We saw the collapse of nation after nation. We saw the capitals of the world, my friend, in a turmoil. Now, we have seen it occur in these United States of ours. »Disorders and bankruptcy will appear shortly everywhere.« Listen to what they say. »We will present ourselves in the guise of saviors of the workers from oppression when we suggest that they enter our army of socialists, anarchists and Communists to whom we always extend our hand under the guise of the rule of brotherhood.« (Although Thomas dresses up such statements as quotations, he never gives any exact references. It is most likely that he quotes from fascist papers or pamphlets, for nothing is more ridiculous than the picture of a supposedly official Communist linking »socialists, anarchists, and Communists.«) Is not that the thing that they had done for our nation? Is not that what caused the collapse of bank after bank and bank after bank until, my friend, it has been estimated that thousands of banks have failed in these United Sates.5
Marxian theory explains the crisis as being caused by the instrinsic laws of capitalistic production. Fascism hits back by attributing the crisis to Communist manipulation. But fascism does not take the trouble to point out how these devilish schemes could work, or how the Communists could possibly control the economic life of America, as long as the capitalistic system prevails. The only possible explanation left to his audience, though not expressly stated, is that a certain group of capitalists, to wit the financiers, are conspiring with the Communists. This device has several advantages. First of all, it serves to discredit Communism which appears no longer as a comprehensive social system, but rather as the opposite, a shrewd trick for profiteering rackets. Conversely, it accuses one particular selected capitalist group, that of »non-productive capital,« of undermining the principle of private property which the bankers, as businessmen are supposed to represent. The obvious objection, that no capitalist group would plot against the system from which its own profit is derived, should strike everyone exposed to such propaganda. The absurdity of this device does not prevent its recurrence throughout fascist propaganda – in one of his esoteric speeches, for instance, Thomas warms up the old story that some international Jewish bankers financed the Bolshevik revolution. Obviously, this formula must have some very powerful irrational, psychological backing. It is certainly the easiest way to combine hatred of the Jews as capitalists with their denunciation as subversive radicals. Many people distrust bankers because transactions on the stock exchange, particularly sudden booms and slumps, used to be largely incomprehensible to them. Since they often had to suffer under such moves, they tended to personify the anonymous reasons for financial losses and to blame acquisitive, plotting groups.
Formerly the operations of the stock exchange actually had a largely »irrational,« unplanned character, which they partly lost in the era of economic concentration. Yet, the attitude against the financier has become habitual and assumes a threatening aspect, in an epoch when »finance capital« appears to lose much of the power which it may have held during the nineteenth century. One may even go so far as to presume that modern hatred against the banker is actually caused by the feeling that he is no longer the power he used to be, and that he can be easily done away with. Imagery of the banker's omnipotence rationalizes the dawning feeling of his impotence. As for the Communists, the idea that they are conspirators and criminals is grounded in their hostility to the whole capitalist system. This attitude forces upon the Communists certain restrictions in formulating their aims and tactics, and thus makes them appear »mysterious« in the eyes of many.
Since the fight against »non-productive« capital is one of the most effective stimuli of anti-Semitism, it will be necessary to cope with this question explicitly in other parts of our project. Here we confine ourselves to two observations. First, the finance capitalist draws hatred upon himself because he appears to enjoy life and luxury without holding, as the industrialist does, any actual commanding power. Second, the »intermediary,« the middleman – of whom the »omnipotent banker« is but an enlarged symbol – is the person who makes the underlying population pay for economic processes which actually take place within the sphere of production. The intermediary has the function of a psychological and economic scapegoat, a function zealously kept alive by certain economic interests. It goes without saying that these hypotheses can be proved only by a full-fledged economic critique of the entire distinction between productive and non-productive capital. At this point, they may only illustrate why the rationally »absurd« identification of banker and Communist proves to be so effective.
As we pointed out, Thomas does not enter into any economic controversy. There is one point, however, where he becomes specific. It is at just this point that he distorts the actual content of Marxian teachings into its opposite. As is well known, Marxism calls for the socialization of the means of production, without proposing the idea that small personal property should be expropriated. Since Thomas' listeners do not own any considerable »means of production« and are only small owners, the idea of the socialization of industry would not be so frightening to them. Therefore, socialism must be depicted as an attempt to deprive them of the little they have, rather than as an attempt to substantially improve the standard of living of the whole population. The Communist is identified with the robber and the thief – in fact, with those looters who usually follow the wake of fascist upheavals.
The second thing the Communists expect to do (the first being, according to Thomas, the universal introduction of atheism) is to destroy all private property and inheritance. They have taken us subtly and wilyly. They say, all private property and inheritance has to be done away with. That means the nationalization of every foot of property. That means the confiscation of everything that you and I hold dear.6
This argument, incidentally, is probably one of the most effective in enrolling the little man into the ranks of fascism.
One last device of Thomas' red-baiting ought to be mentioned. It stems from the Nazi arsenal. One line of the Horst Wessel Lied reads: »Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen.« Thomas often embellishes his tirades against Communists by some hostile references to »reaction,« although this reference never carries the same emphasis as red-baiting. The reason is, on the one hand, that the poor to whom this propaganda is addressed may become suspicious if only Communism is attacked. Hence the real point is clouded by impressing the conviction that old-fashioned reactionaries, groups who do not properly take care of the masses, are also regarded as foes. On the other hand, there is a certain, very slight, realistic basis for reactionary-baiting in fascism. This is the fascist antagonism to certain rival conservative groups with whom they often have to ally themselves, but whom they ultimately liquidate, as they did most effectively in Germany. The antireactionary window-dressing of red-baiting is expressed by Thomas in a concrete political situation:
Take the school board as an illustration. It seems to me as though the public is going to take a whipping either way it goes. There are two tickets, one known as the security ticket, consisting of Mr. Becker, Mr. Dalton, Mrs. Clark, and Mrs. Roundsville; they have the backing of a number of the old reactionary groups. Now, I seriously question, tonight, whether that group will have the power to really clear up the school situation in this city.7
On another occasion, Thomas puts it in more general terms: »I want you people to pray, today, very definitely, that the forces of reaction and the forces that seek to put Christ down may not be allowed to close the radio to the people of God.«8 Thomas wants to drive the Communists out of the United States; but in order to do this, and to prepare for violent action against them, he wants to take over at least their revolutionary concept and attitudes. He attacks reaction because he wants to act by non-legal means – by mob violence and »spontaneous action.« On the one hand, the masses whom the fascist agitator addresses are skeptical of the old ruling class, which they have been accustomed to regard as their master and exploiter. On the other hand, the old ruling class – no matter how the interest of the fascist movement may be related to its own – appears to be unfit for the brutal business of immediate oppression which is fascist government. Cultural tradition, social »status,« even snobbery bar the upper class at least to a certain extent from those attitudes by which authoritarianism rules. Hence, the ruling class is sometimes defamed by fascists as arrogant and »alien to the folk.« Apart from this superficial issue, there exist definite rivalries between the old and the new »elites« – between those who own big property and those who »protect« and, to a considerable extent, control it by their terror apparatus. Thus »Reaktion,« the old ruling class, serves very well the propagandistic purpose of drawing upon itself radical trends of the masses without any serious danger to the authoritarian setup. For it should be noted that, in contrast to the baiting of the »Jewish banker,« fascist propaganda against »reaction« remains rather general and very rarely leads to actual conflict, except in extremely critical situations. Thomas is cautious enough to speak about the »old reactionary groups« only, leaving the door open for their acceptance into his own more up-to-date version.
Administration- and President-baiting
There is quite a treasure of subjects at hand for government-baiting by fascist groups. Government by representation can always be depicted as »indirect,« alien to the people, cold and institutionalized.9 Its centralistic nature always can be played up as being directed against the interest of the people, particularly those living in the more distant section. There is the bogy of »bureaucracy« which can be dug up wherever a centralized democratic government has to cope with the niceties of rational and constitutional law. Then there is always the possibility of calling such a government wasteful or corrupt. Every expenditure is likely to appear as »waste« to the little man who must pay taxes without being able to see how this money works for his immediate advantage. The mentality of the actually or supposedly overburdened taxpayer, and his inherent antagonism to centralized government are psychological assets of fascist propaganda. A feeling of injustice is involved in tax-paying under an anonymous state which takes without being capable of guaranteeing the lives of those from whom it takes. Even people with only meager direct taxes, as is probably true of Thomas' audience, may often share the taxpayer mentality through their desire to ape economic superiors. The »overburdened taxpayer« tends to become a creed of its own. The consequent resentment is directed towards the government that takes rather than towards a social system which makes taxes unavoidable. Of course, where fascism comes into power, even heavier taxes will have to be paid, but they are more effectively cloaked, at least at the beginning, as being love offerings for the immediate benefit of the fatherland and racial comrades. The reference to the idea of the folk together with terror, temporarily stops any discussion of the tax issue. The same applies to the issue of corruption. There is no doubt that there is more waste and corruption in countries where uncontrolled, domineering groups are in power, than in democratic nations. In totalitarian countries corruption cases are kept hidden, and the subject rarely comes up. The fact that democracies allow frank discussion of corruption creates the illusion that democracy is the breeding ground of corruption. Naturally, the »progressive,« pointedly democratic Roosevelt Administration is a particularly adequate target for the antigovernmental attitude of fascists, although one should by no means think that fascist opposition is essentially bound up with the New Deal. Liberal Republicans like Wendell Willkie are now attacked in a similar way. However, fascist propaganda against the New Deal can feed upon the liberal tradition of the United States which regards any state interference in economic matters as a means of denouncing the present.
Thomas hates the President and wants his audience to hate him. Yet he always speaks about »our President« and prays for him, thus professing to honor the tolerant tradition of American democracy. However, there is actually only one thing he wants the President to do: to repent. The Christian idea of repentance is transformed into a shrewd means of blackening the Chief Executive:
My friend, I speak to you in the most solemn way that it is possible to address a human being, that unless you repent, unless the President of the United States repents, unless the Supreme Court repents, unless the members of the Senate repent, etc., unless every man and woman of this nation repents, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.10
It may be assumed that in this passage »every man and woman« is incidental and that the real emphasis is laid upon the President who has never left any doubt of his basically liberal convictions.
By innuendo the President and his Administration – or at least some »high places« – are linked up with Communism. This device, by the way, is by no means limited to fascist agitators, but is used by practically all foes of the Administration: »Why will America stand for this type of thing (an artificially organized economic crisis)? Is it possible that in high places, my friend, that encouragement has been lent to this type of thing?«11 The title of one of his speeches puts the stigma of Communism squarely upon the shoulder of the Administration: »Is it true, as charged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that Communism is the real aim of many of those around our President?«12 In one of his »esoteric« speeches, Thomas goes so far as to allege that, even though the »Protocols of the Elders of Zion« have been proved to be falsifications, their inner truth is proved by the New Deal. The Administration has supposedly executed step by step all the plans laid down in those documents. Incidentally, exactly the same argument was put forward by the Nazi, Rosenberg, when he maintained the inner truth of these protocols, after their falsity had been acknowledged by a Swiss Court. Rational refutation is psychologically powerless against such legends as that of the protocols, or such insinuations as those made against the Administration by Thomas. As soon as they cannot be maintained any longer on the objective level, they are transformed by auxiliary hypotheses, or by shifting from the level of facts to the level of »inner truth.«
President-baiting is by no means new in the United States. It has recurred again and again since the days of Andrew Johnson, and historical analysis would probably reveal a permanent readiness to indict the President on the part of certain political groups. Ironically enough, the baiters of Johnson called themselves »radicals.« The thesis that the attitude of the population towards the President is ambivalent because he is a father image appears to us unspecific and simplistic. Modern monarchies such as Great Britain show few analogies to President-baiting in republics. The habit stems rather from certain issues of democracy in general, and of the American Constitution in particular. The fact that government »of the people, by the people and for the people« invests one single individual with the considerable power of the presidency is apparently paradoxical in the eyes of many people. Unconsciously at least, a strong resistance is elicited. Prima facie, the chief executive power is resented as reminiscent of monarchism, as »undemocratic.« Hence the constant readiness to invoke the system of checks and balances against the executive branch, to say that it oversteps its boundaries and craves dictatorship. Today, however, this old resistance of primitive or »folk« democracy to the idea of representation and the institution of the Presidency serves mainly to promote an utterly different ideology. What is actually resented about the President is not so much his »antidemocratic« power as the idea that this power is not »legitimate,« that his authority is not the genuine expression of today's basic power relationships. Therefore, the fascist-minded want it to be destroyed. Old memories of absolutistic legitimacy have been converted into the fascist idea once expressed by Goebbels, that only one who makes use of power deserves it, that is to say, one who exploits it for the purpose of ruthless oppression. While the President is denounced as a would-be dictator, he is actually despised because he will not, and cannot, act dictatorially, since he represents a system, and groups, which are intrinsically antidictatorial. In the last analysis, the President-baiters sense somehow that the legal power invested in the President does not fully correspond to his actual social power – that the decisive economic forces are to be found beyond his range and, at the present time, in the other camp. Hence his constitutional rights are psychologically conceived as being »illegitimate,« compared with big ownership, which expresses the essence of business culture. Modern President-baiting is an index of the conflict between formal democracy and economic concentration, a conflict which tends to increase proportionately with the latter. The history of the French Third Republic in particular, where the official democratic regime permanently was snubbed not only by the old aristocracy but also by the most influential economic forces, is highly analogous to modern American President-baiting. In a way, hatred of the President is not altogether different from that against high finance, with which the fascist like to link him.
»Pick up thy bed and walk« device
In addition to President-baiting and the general assumption that the Roosevelt Administration encourages atheism, Communism, and modernism, there is actually only one specific point attacked by Thomas – the unemployment policies of the New Deal. In this respect Thomas is definitely old-fashioned and appeals to groups of small property owners: He fails to recognize the gravity of the unemployment problem and the pressures in it which can be used, whereas more modern fascists, such as Phelps, try to win over the unemployed to the »movement.« It is probably this aspect of Thomas' propaganda which is largely responsible for his failure, though, on the other hand, this aspect also attracted groups which otherwise might have been hostile to his whole approach. Propagandistic exploitation of the problem of unemployment and actual fascist »integration« of the unemployed are two very different things. Thomas carefully cloaks his anti-unemployed attitude in Christian terms. Interpreting the sentence »Arise, pick up thy bed and walk« in terms of professional initiative completely alien to the Bible, Thomas says:
God says to walk. We have killed the spirit of tens of thousands of people by dispensing charity. We are never going to solve America's problems except those people who are in actual need be given help. On a certain day, at a certain hour, at a certain minute, at a certain second, if we say every dollar is going to give you so much time and by then, by the Grace of God, if you don't want work, you don't want to eat. It is almost impossible to get a man or woman to work. We have got to stop this situation.13
Exactly the same device has worked in Germany. Naturally unemployed had to be fed there too, but the difference in Germany was that they had to »work« for it for a short period by doing unnecessary and futile work, and later by preparing the war of aggression. The idea that no one should be allowed to eat without working, although the work in itself may be utterly superfluous, has proved most attractive psychologically. One of the paradoxes of the present situation is that envy is concentrated upon the most unfortunate group, the unemployed, because they are conceived of as being exempted from the hardship of labor. This envy works as a tool to bring the unemployed as »soldiers of labor« under the immediate control of the domineering group, while offering a certain gratification to the actual job-holders. Thomas' hatred against the Administration stems largely from this source. The idea of forcing the unemployed to work is occasionally presented by Thomas in the form of some phoney appeal for agrarian reform, showing his affinity to the »blood and soil« ideology.
The government should supply the means of production and furnish the individuals with ten acres of ground – or whatever they are able to do – and let them get out and by the sweat of their brows14 earn their daily bread. There are millions of people in this country at the present hour who do not want to work. There are millions of people in this country who don't want to work and who would not accept a position if they had that opportunity.15
The unemployed are depicted as lazy. Thomas proclaims the need for a strong hand. By implication, a fascist regime appears to be the only chance of teaching them to work, of »integrating« them, and simultaneously of punishing them for their laziness. One should expect, prima facie, that the cynicism of such statements would alienate the masses and produce violent opposition to Thomas. Although this may have happened with some of his listeners, it would be too rationalistic to assume that it played a large role. Thomas is shrewd enough to reckon with a paradoxical longing for the strong hand among those who would have to feel its strength. They enjoy authority not only because it gives them a feeling of security, but also because they identify themselves so strongly with the power system that they are ready to undergo any hardship, as proof of the power and virility with which their own humiliation seems to incorporate them. In imperial Germany many ex-soldiers, who had suffered the most brutal treatment under Prussian militarism, later on referred to military service as the most beautiful time of their lives. Such is the attitude which Thomas calculates upon in his attack on the unemployed. There are no means of checking this phenomenon, but it would not be astonishing to discover that he enrolled a considerable number of followers from the ranks of those whom he whipped for their supposed unwillingness to work. Moreover, it is probably these same followers who are most prone to excesses against the weak.
In Thomas' propaganda over the radio, anti-Semitism is only a sideshow. He is hampered not only by the regulations of broadcasting but also by the religious medium. In a certain way, his religious line calls for respect by the people for the Old Testament and is irreconcilable with too frank an attack upon a minority group. Yet the esoteric speeches show that Thomas is, or at least was, violently anti-Semitic. By innuendo, his anti-Semitism is also expressed in his radio addresses. Taking into consideration his vocal inflection and oratorical attitude, it can be assumed that he refers to the Jews when he speaks about »these forces« and suggests that his audience knows what he means. The weight of the anti-Semitic propaganda within Thomas' speeches is incomparably greater than the actual amount of his frank anti-Semitic statements. As we pointed out, the medium by which he indirectly introduces anti-Semitism is religion. This serves two purposes: to give the attacks on the Jews an aura of theological authority and to disguise his propaganda of hatred behind the cloak of Christian love.
Palestine seems to function as a link between his theological anti-Judaism and fascist anti-Semitism. This topic seems to be fairly far-fetched. The resettlement of the Jews appears, at first sight, to be of little emotional appeal to anti-Semites. Yet the choice of this subject matter may not be altogether insignificant. One of the fundamental impulses of the anti-Semite makes itself felt in the complaint that the Jews are »there.« »They shall get out.« »They are not wanted here.« While this impulse is apparently directed only against the Jews as the »guest nation,« a favorite Nazi concept, it actually aims at the Jews being »there« at all. It is as though the anti-Semite could not tolerate them on any part of the earth. He regards them as intruders and infringers everywhere: in the theatre, where they have bought their tickets as well as the »Gentiles,« no less than in the vacation resort or in an exotic country. Their very existence is perceived by him as a threat to the potentiality of feeling »at home.« While he attacks the Jews because of their supposed striving for world domination, the anti-Semite nourishes this desire himself. The Jews are a symbol to him that he does not yet possess the whole world. Hence the reference to Jewish settlement and Jewish expansion in a particular country probably has a definite meaning to the anti-Semitic-minded. It may inspire their fury even if the pertinent explicit statements do not involve name-calling. This may help to understand why Thomas sometimes uses confused references to the Jewish resettlement of Palestine as symbols for the coming of the day of judgement, without making it quite clear whether he favors this settlement or resents it. This attitude mirrors the Nazi ambivalence toward Zionism. The Nazis welcomed it insofar as it promised that they could get rid of the Jews. But they also regarded it as dangerous – or at least pretended to so regard it – because it apparently proved their assumption of a Jewish nationalism transcending the borders of the other nations. Behind this ambivalence looms the most deadly hatred. The Jews, according to the fascist mentality, should be allowed neither to stay where they are nor to become a separate nation. No possibility is left but extermination. The Jewish settlement in Palestine is described in a factual manner, but its very phrasing has a threatening aspect. The audience is made to shudder under the idea of the supposedly tremendous increase of Jewish power in Palestine. The Jews are depicted as extremely formidable and, therefore, dangerous. We shall accompany the following passage by a running commentary.
Now, the Jews are returning. According to the Jewish telegraphic agency, recently, more Jewish farmers had been settled in Palestine than were there 2000 years ago. It is the one bright spot, economically speaking, in all the world today. There is no depression in Palestine. (The implication is, of course, that the Jews are smart and are doing well.) The natural resources of that nation (speaking about »that nation« is one of Thomas' standard devices. While this expression can apparently be explained on purely grammatical grounds, it psychologically conveys the idea of a nation that everyone knows but will not name) are now being exploited and developed. I was reading a report not long ago concerning the chemicals deposited in the Dead Sea (conspiratory device). This chemical research engineer said that somewhere between fifteen and twenty-five billion dollars worth of vital chemicals were deposited in the Dead Sea alone. (This is shrewdly ambiguous. It is left obscure whether Thomas refers to the potential chemical value of the resources of the Dead Sea, or whether he means that the Jews have hidden poisoned gas on its ground, the intention being, that his uneducated listeners will believe the latter. The idea, of course, is completely fantastic.) On the Jordan river great hydro-electric plants are now being developed. (Here a shock is achieved by the blasphemous combining of a sacred Biblical name with a very modern technical term.) Universities are springing up. My friend, this is a certain sign that the hour of the Gentile nations is now closing. Why? Because the Gentile nations are now doing exactly the same thing, yea, they have already done so, that the Jews did 2000 years ago that caused their Jewish expulsion from the land and caused God to reject the Jewish nation. (The sins of the Gentiles are put upon the shoulders of the Jews. The emphasis of the obscure sentence is upon the last words »to reject the Jewish nation« and this is probably all the audience's mind is capable of catching.) Now, then, they have been scattered, and for 2000 years they have been a homeless and a wandering people, wandering hither and yonder. In the meantime God has been speaking and has given the authority to the Gentile nations. Now, coincidentally with the close of the Gentile era the Jews are returning, many of them to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (This apparently positive sentence only contributes to the general confusion and atmosphere of panic. Moreover, the implication is that baptized Palestinian Jews may be saved and that the most degraded of all is the Jew who remains where he is and clings to Judaism. This passage hits ultimately at the Jews in America.) However, more of them are returning to Palestine in unbelief. But, my friend, the hour is not far away, when the armies yonder of the Gentile worlds in that great battle of Armageddon, which will come in my opinion in the close of the next great world war, the Jews shall be gathered in that land. They shall be besieged upon every hand, and they shall fall upon their faces, and in the hour of their extreme necessity, they will call upon God and God will answer from Heaven; and Jesus Christ, whom they have rejected, their elder brother, shall come with a mighty delivering power.16
In other words, after the big pogrom that Thomas, the Nazi, hopes for, Thomas the preacher gives them some chance of being saved. Amazingly enough, the idea that a reckoning with the Jews will take place after the second world war appeared in Thomas' speeches eight years ago. This is one of the major anti-Semitic slogans at present (1943). There is no doubt that this idea, dangerously spread among soldiers, was consciously manipulated by fascist agitators, and is quite independent of the war and the behaviour of Jews during the war. It has been warmed up artificially.
The main device of Thomas' indirect anti-Semitic propaganda is to refer to some Biblical guilt of the Jews. He depends upon his audience to transfer the age-old judgment to the present:
To the South was Isaiah, a contemporary of Hosea who was preaching in the South of Judea. Both men had practically the same message. God warned the nation through the lips of his prophet that unless the nation returned to God and established justice and mercy in the land, that inevitably God always allowed them to go down as a nation and to go into captivity and to be overrun by the surrounding nations of the world.17
Thomas goes on to compare present-day America to Judea at the time of the prophets. The major effect of the reiteration of the word Judea is to give the audience the idea that there exists a more immediate relationship between Judea and America, namely that the »American crisis« is due to the sons of Judea. Thomas is cautious not to make any such statement, but the »musical« setup of the whole passage with the drumming on »Jews« and »Judea« definitely works to that effect. This »musical« technique of anti-Semitic innuendo is most obvious in this statement: »Communism is nothing more or less than the synagogue of Satan that our Lord spoke about.«18 The description of Communism as the synagogue of Satan is superficially only a Biblical metaphor; but since Jewish temples are known under the Greek name of synagogue, the association carried by the sentence is that Communism has something to do with the synagogues – in other words, that Jews and Communists are the same.
Sometimes Thomas comes into the open with frank anti-Semitic statements. Primary, of course, is insistence upon the »Jewish problem« in America. In a democracy, anti-Semitism has won its first victory when the farce of such a »problem« is allowed to go on. It is a particularly easy and dangerous victory since the term »problem« appears to be neutral and scientific. But actually this term brings about a conceptual segregation of the Jews and implies that they are going to become the object of certain special administrative measures. The »problem« device requires a special technique of pseudo-objectivity. In the very moment when Thomas becomes an outspoken anti-Semite, he professes to be a friend of the Jews. This highly significant configuration has the following appearance:
In every nation of the world today, you have that tremendous conflict going on between the Jews with the government and the people that are represented within that nation. There is not a nation in the world today that does not have its Jewish problem, not one. I speak, tonight (!), as a friend of the Jews. I speak, tonight, as one that would take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them, but I say to you without any fear of contradiction: There is a Jewish problem on at the present hour that will not die throughout the earth. It is the precursor, it is the forerunner of that day, there, that hour when that people shall be gathered yonder in that great land, going back in unbelief; but one of these days they will cry to Jesus Christ to release them and he shall come and claim his ancient people. ... Is it not a fault of the Christians of the world that we have failed to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to that people? We are reaping what we have sown, we are reaping what we have sown.19
The last sentence hypocritically blames the Christians who have failed to convert the Jews, implying that the Jews are going to punish them for this failure. In reality, behind the gesture of repentance looms the Jewish danger and the Communist world plot, serving as an incitement to »defensive« action. This is achieved by a Biblical quotation that follows immediately after the last sentences: »They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and Jerusalem shall be trodden until the time of the Gentiles shall come.«20 In this context the application of the citation is quite clear. The Jews are supposed to rule the world, until the Gentiles unite against them. Hardly less clear is the idea promoted by the following statement, where confusion fosters panic and makes the issue against the Jews even stronger:
»... that Jerusalem is in the hand of the Jews again, that it is the national home reestablished for the Jews. The Jews are now in the land of Palestine in answer to the prophecy of God. There are more Jews there now than any time in 2000 years of history. (This is supposed to be a threat to the Gentiles.) In 1917 it was a critical time in the history of the earth of ours. Now, strange as it may seem, do you know that when General Allenby took the city of Jerusalem in the name of King George ... from the very moment God placed it in the hands of the Zionists, from that hour other things happened. The Communists moved into Moscow exactly upon the release of Palestine. The Church began a downward movement, a loss of vitality, a loss of life. What else happened? You find the program of the Antichrist moving across the world in order to fasten the hold upon the world through all Christian homes in this world of ours.«21
The idea is that the Zionists, the British and the Communists were all involved in a huge conspiracy. This linking, by the way, corresponds to a line of attack taken by other fascist agitators, such as Phelps, who include the English in their Jew-baiting and Communist-baiting. In fact, the Nazi government called the British, »white Jews.«
In general the identification of the Jews with the Devil (as Christ-killers) leads to an image of them as diabolical plotters throughout the history of the world. This line of attack is favored by Thomas above that of depicting them as emulators, characterless intruders, »Untermenschen,« etc. Here lies a specific difference between German and American anti-Semitism. It should be taken into consideration by counterpropaganda. German Jews, most of whom had been native for many centuries, were largely assimilated. Anti-Semitism had to attack them in their assimilated condition. Hence, it exploited the concept of assimilation itself. Jews were depicted as aiming to merge with Gentiles – to »poison« them from within. In America, where Jewish immigration on a large scale took place only since the nineteenth century, assimilation is by no means so strongly developed, and the Jewish immigrants are a much more obvious national minority. Hence, the job of anti-Semitism is easier in a way. Jews are blamed for being different. This is expressed in the prevailing idea of American anti-Semitism that the Jews are conspirators and aim at political supremacy as a definite national group. It should be noted, however, that in Thomas' anti-Semitic armory at least one argument is utterly lacking – the idea of the Jew as a weakling. This argument probably proved to be the most dangerous of all in Germany. The Biblical splendour with which Thomas cloaks the Jews is, in spite of his antipathy, a kind of safeguard against contempt and derision. It is this reason which made Thomas comparatively innocuous in his specific campaign against the Jews. It is perhaps correct to say that those of his techniques which have nothing to do with the Jews are psychologically more dangerous as anti-Semitic weapons than his anti-Semitic invectives themselves.
Remarks on Thomas' appeal to Americanism cannot be compared with the emphasis Nazi agitators put on their idea of the fatherland and the German race. Thomas' Americanism is only a somewhat feeble echo. His moderation is probably due to his adaption to the mood of his listeners. In foreign policy, he exploits pacifism in the same way as he exploits anticapitalist leanings in home policy. Militant patriotism is much less developed in a country which has undergone few foreign wars and whose predominance has remained undisputed. Hence Thomas' Americanism is of a somewhat negative nature. He speaks of the danger threatening this country and of its having become soft and decadent, much more than of its strength or its right to a dominant position in the world. His foreign policy consists of patriotic exaltation and a simultaneous resignation to the power aspirations of other countries. He favors nationalism as such. Concretely, however, he sympathizes more with German nationalism, the model for his fascist ideals, than with the foreign political aims of the American nation.
This is reflected by a certain ambivalence in regard to the problem of war, which of course plays the Nazi game. In spite of his Americanism – or rather because of his fascist concept for America – Thomas is an appeaser. He uses American peace-mindedness as a force for bringing the country into the clutches of the aggressor nations. He presents a long and confused argument which terminates in a kind of justification of German rearmament.
There is absolutely no comparison of what has taken place in the world as to what is going to take place in the world. Every statesman in the world is absolutely shivering in his boots for the fear of what is coming upon the morrow. The British statesmen, every one of them, say that war cannot be postponed in Europe so very much longer. France and Germany, and Italy, and England, and Russia, and every nation and Japan are ready. They are armed to the teeth. They are ready for the beginning of the Hell upon earth. Not that any one of the nations wants it. It is my opinion that every statesman in Europe despises war. If they know anything about it, they despise it. When anybody tells you that there is a lot of saber rattling going on in the world, men that want war, I don't believe that any sane man desires war, but in spite of the fact that they do not desire war, they are being pushed inevitably step by step, inch by inch over the abyss into another great world patricidal conflict. Why is it? Why is it that we can't stop war? Why is it that the Communists in this country preach that America shall disarm, but allow Russia to arm? Now, I don't take any stock in that type of pacifism at all, and I don't think that any man or American that has his head upon his shoulders and eyes that see, that are wide open and a brain that is thinking, takes any stock in that type of thing, but listen, why is it that we can't stop war? For the very simple thing that this world lies in the lap of the wicked ones. For the very simple reason that this world has rejected the Son of the living God. The world system is not based upon Christianity. The world system is based upon a satanic world, that desires to devour and desires to kill and desires to murder the human race. Now, the nations of the world are getting prepared. Now, you mind what I tell you. I know, when war comes again, and it will come, you know the wars have been interspaced approximately twenty years between. ... The last war, it will only be a child's play as compared to the war that is coming. Can you imagine a hundred airplanes in the stratosphere, piloted by robots with great bombs sent out two miles high, where it is utterly impossible to make a defense so far as other planes are concerned, and with the proper setting of a watch to drop two great bombs two to three miles high in the midst of a great city in the world. Why, my friends, you know what it means. It means annihilation. It means death. It means destruction. Can you imagine what the next war will be? There will be machine guns firing six thousand shots a minute. Can you imagine that? Well, now listen to me. Nobody that has any sense desires war, but there is something on the inside of the human race that is producing fear. Germany fears. That is the reason that Germany is arming.22
His foreign political line is definitely pro-German:
You will note a manoeuvering going on between Italy, France, and England and that of Germany on the other side. I am happy to note that apparently a new program is gradually being evolved between, or by the British nation in their attitude toward the German people. I think that it is now well conceded in high diplomatic circles that the Germanic races, and the Anglo-Saxon races and the Scandinavian races must now all stand shoulder to shoulder against this greatest menace that has ever faced Western civilization since Genghis Khan launched his hordes of Asiatics and overran the Western world. England seems to be softening towards Germany, knowing full well that Germany stands as the only bulwark of Western civilization against the great hordes of Communists, under the leadership of the apostate people, and that unless the Germanic and English speaking nations stand together, there is no hope of preserving the Christian religion or the Christian civilization. And if our own officials in Washington are wise, they will chart a national course that will bring Great Britain, Germany, and the Scandinavian nations into a fraternal understanding.23
Whereas the »apostate people,« whoever these may be, are godless, the Nazis are regarded, by hook or crook, as being religious:
God had to allow Germany to bleed to death until the German people came to realize that there is God in Heaven and that the nation that forgets God goes down to utter defeat. My friend, Germany today has learned her lesson, and has begun to come back and realize that the religion must go out and word of God must be praised. England and America will go down.24
Authoritarian obedience seemingly is regarded as being religious per se. Here the preaching of religious repentance moves surreptitiously into the doctrines of a fifth columnist. It is against this background that the »supreme demand of the hour« is brought out.
It should be added that Thomas uses a peculiar technique when he deals with foreign policy. Nations are treated by him as if they were subjects. Moral concepts are immediately applied to them and moral dichotomies are used to explain national political issues. This device, a concession to the incapacity of the audience to think in impersonal terms, has a sinister connotation in spite of its prophetic ring. The more the nations are treated as single subjects rather than as groups of people, and the more people are made obedient cogs within their nations, the more helplessly are they subject to the impending catastrophe which Thomas incessantly depicts. Thus they are being softened up for »integration.«
The Bible makes plain to us, my friend, the reason for the fall of the empires. There is a moral law at work among the nations, for nations are but made up of men and women. Whatever a man soweth, that shall he reap. Whatever a nation soweth, that shall it also reap. Wide, indeed, is the field of observation when we come to study this truth of the past and the present, for nations are just as surely dying and sinking, today, as they have been in the past, for every monument and every book and arch and every heap of debris, every lonely pillar becomes a pulpit from which we hear the voice of the past, preaching the great sermon of national sin and national judgment.25
The personification of the nation is a kind of negative totalitarian integration. The American nation, according to Thomas, is a huge collective sinner; therefore, the nation has to repent collectively – in short, adopt a fascist order.
God is calling the American people to return to himself. He says, I have a controversy against you, because you have departed from me, from my covenant. You have broken my ordinance. You and I, my friend, are part and parcel of a great people. Our forefathers in this nation have built a great structure, and they planted this word of the living God as the very foundation stone of their individual life, of their state life, and of their national life, and now we have broken upon difficult days. We have come to days, my friend, when we have disregarded the old landmarks of our fathers. We have become so wise. We have become so understanding. We know everything but, ah, my friends, there are some things that we don't know, and that is we have lost a knowledge of the living God out of these lives of ours. America, today, is an unhappy land. America, today, is an unhappy people. From the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Dominion of Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, our people are in a chaotic state of evils. My friend, the reason for that is simply this. We have kicked the knowledge of our God out of our hearts and minds. We are doing a lot of sacrificing, today, sacrificing to the wrong things. We sacrifice to the God of silver and gold. We bow down to hay and stubble. The God of the belly is our God, today upon the part of many of our people. The God of pleasure has taken the place of the God of obedience; our Lord, Jesus Christ has been cast out of our churches. ... Our fathers wanted to get to a point where God could rule their lives and the lives of their children and so they came across the uncharted ocean, across these plains and prairies and mountains. They lived in sod houses. They lived in log houses. They lived in the dugouts beneath the earth.26
Characteristically enough, the appeal for American regeneration ends with an almost unveiled desire for a lowering of the general standard of living. This change which he expects to be brought about by totalitarian regimentation is rationalized as being God's remedy for softness and degeneration.
The ultimate aim of Thomas' propaganda is authority by brutal, sadistic oppression. This is the focal point, the unifying principle that rules his theology and his politics, his psychology and his morals. Among his stimuli the concept of severe punishment in time and eternity is decisive. His descriptions of tortures are minute in detail. Obviously he wants to give his listeners a special gratification through such descriptions.
They built a fire for him one day, and they said, Polycarp, unless you recant, unless you denounce Jesus Christ, then, indeed, you must burn. It is said that he reached his right hand into the flame and gave to the world this historical statement. »Three score and ten years have I served the Christ, and he has done me no harm but only good. Why should I renounce him now in my old age?« He refused to recant that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Polycarp, when he had ended those words in substance, walked into the flames and was burned to a crisp, and it was during the same period of time when tens of thousands of Christians were cast into prison. We are told that tens of thousands of these men, women, and children were fed to the lions, that they marched proudly with their faces turned toward God into the bloodiest arena and there kneeling down, they committed their souls to the Christ; that the lions with a bound were upon them and crunched their bones and ate their flesh. We are told in this period of time, that the fires and the water and every conceivable form of persecution was used in order to do away with Christianity; but instead of the Christians decreasing, they increased. They were driven into the holes of the earth; – and today, we have found the remains of many of them beneath the catacombs ... hidden from the soldiers, hidden from the secret police ... hidden from the spying eyes, these men and women lived and died in a triumphant faith. I call your attention here to the fact that our Lord, Jesus Christ, said that those days of tribulation will come, be thou faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.27
The future of America of which he warns is depicted in not altogether different terms: »One of these fine mornings you men and women will arise with no stocks and no bonds and no home and your backs will be placed against a wall with a machine gun bullet in your heart and in your head.«28 One may well expect that the audience projects this image upon their foes and thus enjoys it. Thomas almost openly professes this ambivalence towards atrocities in one of his anti-Soviet diatribes: »I want to say that you men and women, you and I are living in the most fearful time of the history of the world. We are living also in the most gracious and most wonderful time.«29 This is the agitator's dream, the unification of the horrible and the wonderful, the drunkenness of an annihilation that pretends to be salvation.
Fußnoten
1 A German joke, fairly popular in pro-Hitler days, expresses this idea quite appropriately: »The Jews are guilty.« – »No, the bicyclists.« – »why the bicyclists?« – »Why the Jews?« The motive behind this joke, which is by no means very »witty« but strikes at an essential point, should be followed up carefully by counterpropaganda.
2 The mentioning of »all the organizers and secretaries« is apparently the projection of a bureaucratic wish-fantasy on Thomas' part. It is he who always wants to organize, and dreams of having innumerable secretaries.
3 June 16, 1935.
4 June 10, 1935.
5 June 30, 1935.
6 April 25, 1935.
7 April 29, 1935.
8 May 24, 1935.
9 Cf. p. 98, above.
10 June 14, 1935.
11 June 30, 1935.
12 July 14, 1935.
13 June 3, 1935.
14 Exactly the same expression is used by Luther in his book against the Jews, where he advocates subjecting them to forced labor. (Cf. Institute of Social Research, Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, ed. Max Horkheimer, IX, 1941, p. 128.)
15 June 12, 1935.
16 June 16, 1935.
17 June 2, 1935.
18 June 21, 1935.
19 June 13, 1935.
20 Ibid.
21 July 6, 1935.
22 April 27, 1935.
23 April 14, 1935.
24 April 25, 1935.
25 July 14, 1935.
26 June 9, 1935.
27 June 21, 1935.
28 July 7, 1935.
29 April 21, 1935.