Should we be concerned about Fascism?

A few lessons from Reaching for the Stars by Nora Waln

There has been a growing crescendo over the last few months of people calling Donald Trump a fascist. This is frustrating, yet depressingly predictable: it happened last time Trump was elected, and the left these days seem to call anyone they don’t like a Nazi. At the same time, I believe that the overuse of this term by the left has so devalued it that people of all political stripes won’t be able to recognise the warning signs in our own day and age.

In other words, just because the word is overused to the point of absurdity doesn’t mean it’s not a real threat.

Many on the right have pointed out that it is the left who have exhibited the worst authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies in recent years, and this is a completely fair accusation. At the same time, I believe that the right itself needs to be cautious about fascism. The fact that the word has been thrown around so casually by the left doesn’t mean we can dismiss it out of hand.

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been reading Nora Waln’s book Reaching for the Stars. This was published in 1939, on the eve of WWII, and describes her experience living under the National Socialists (i.e. the Nazis) in Germany. It was mentioned on the Daily Sceptic a while back, and as soon as I saw it I knew it was a book I had to read. It didn’t disappoint.

At school, I learned a lot about WWII - it was one of the big topics we majored on in history. At the same time, I had no idea what it felt like to live under a fascist regime. I had no idea why the German people would have accepted such a thing. These things were not really covered in my education - my abiding memory is learning that the German people allowed themselves to be deceived by a charismatic leader. That may be true as far as it goes, but the truth is far more complicated than that.

As an aside: once again it all seems to come back to education, doesn’t it?! - how much do schools teach about WWII, and yet how little knowledge and — dare I say it, wisdom — is actually communicated?

What I’d like to do in this post is share some of my highlights from the book, before moving onto some lessons we can learn today about fascism.

As I was reading, I posted some of the quotes I found most interesting on my X account, and you can see them all on this thread.

How the Germans fell for fascism

One of the things which comes across beautifully in Waln’s book is how the German people are a wonderful people. She describes them as kind-hearted and sincere, generous, a Christian people, not the kind of people we would think of as Nazis. What would make a people like this accept Nazism?

There were a few reasons that I could discern. Firstly, there were the positive reasons - that is, the Nazis were - in a sense - what people wanted at the time:

• At the time Hitler came to power, Germany was in a very bad way. People felt that the Treaty of Versailles had left the country in poor shape, and there was a lot of poverty. Some territories had been taken away from Germany, for example. People felt that the Treaty was needlessly unfair. They - quite understandably - wanted this to be redressed. It was into this context that Hitler managed to impose order on the country, sort out the economy, give young people a sense of purpose again (e.g. by joining the Hitler Youth and making them do National Service).

• Hitler also talked about the unification of Germany and the territories which had been lost after WWI. German people longed for a unification of the Germanic peoples, which they had wanted for a long time, and Hitler was promising to deliver this.

There were also a number of negative reasons:

• Many people were simply afraid to stand up to the National Socialists. One of the things which comes up many times in the book is the way that people who should have known better did not stand up against the Nazis when they had the chance.

• Many people seem to have been convinced by the ‘ends justifies the means’ argument - that is, while they may not have agreed with the way that Hitler was going about things, they could see some of the good effects that it was having on the country.

• Propaganda played a big part - the National Socialists had a department dedicated to propaganda (they were very open about what they were doing), which made it very difficult for people to know what was really going on.

• Finally, I think most German people - certainly as Nora Waln was writing - had little idea of the full scale of what was going on, or at least what was going to happen. She talked about concentration camps, but she doesn’t mention any of the horrors of Auschwitz and the like.

Let me dive into a few quotes from the book to put the flesh on the bones of what I’ve said here.

The road to hell…

Near the beginning of the book, before Waln and her husband crossed the border into Germany, she has a conversation with a woman who says to her:

“It isn’t that Germans are intentionally wicked. It is that they befuddle themselves into faith that good can be achieved through evil. They have consciences that prick them, and they quiet their troublesome doubts, not by self-correction, but by assuring themselves of their good intentions. Once a German is convinced that the Germans know how to order life for everyone’s good, he is converted to Pan-Germanism. The means is but the way to that perfectly beautiful end.”

I thought this was one of the most insightful statements in the whole book. The statement there about ‘good intentions’ reminds me of the saying, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” The Germans had convinced themselves that they were doing what was right and good for everybody - they had convinced themselves of their moral superiority. That moral superiority kicked in whenever their conciences were pricked about whatever they had to do.

This is how fascism came into Germany: not because the German people believed they were doing evil, but because they believed that good could be achieved through means that were not good. The ends justified the means. I may come back to one or two examples of this in the next section, but it’s a story which was repeated many times through the twentieth century: ordinary men and women did terribly evil things, not because they were consciously doing evil but because they could set aside the morality of their own actions for ‘the greater good’.

The other day I heard about Adolf Eichmann, an SS officer, one of the major organisers of the Holocaust (the “final solution”). He had never himself killed anyone, he had never set foot in a concentration camp - and yet he quietly, without fuss, arranged the extermination of millions of people. This is, as Hannah Arendt put it, the banality of evil. Many people did not question whether what they were doing was right or wrong, they simply followed orders, trusting implicitly that they were participating in some greater good which would justify their actions.

The lack of courage

Many people who did witness the problems didn’t speak out about it because they saw Hitler as the lesser of two evils - this exchange is illuminating. To put this into context, a university professor had been dismissed from his position by the Nazis, and 35 (older) men had signed a petition to protest against the decision. They took this petition to the local authorities, and they were told: “It is not usual to question acts of government here. It borders on treason.” At that point, 33 of them slipped away. Waln asked what happened to the other two:

“They persisted in reading the petition and were beaten insensible. One was a fine organist at one of our biggest churches. I have heard that his hands are ruined,” the estate agent coughed nervously. “You must not judge ours a bad Government. We have got to be ruled hard until things are straight. Our country would have gone Communist if the Nazis had not saved us. Hitler’s Government is benevolent to all who willingly obey. Our Führer knows that we must be a people of one Will if we are to regain our place among the strong nations of the world.”

People were well aware that it was wrong to beat elderly men insensible for protesting. At the same time, maybe they thought: “well, they had it coming. They shouldn’t have protested. The Nazis are always good to people who don’t complain.” If the choice is between the Nazis or something worse, maybe it’s easier to accept the Nazis…?

Not to mention the fact people had a huge incentive to avoid criticism of the Nazis for their future career prospects. One young aspiring doctor said to Waln: “We have to join the Hitler Youth. We have to accept as gospel every Nazi word. Otherwise we have no future. We are told quite plainly that no job and no profession will be open to us if we do not accept National-Socialism.” People simply chose to keep their heads down and not ask too many questions.

There were brave men and women who stood up against the Nazis, but they were few and far between - and many of them ended up in concentration camps.

Fanatical loyalty

The Nazis taught that loyalty to the state came first. The book records someone saying:

“The creed of this Party teaches that loyalty to the State ranks above every other relationship. It comes before loyalty between husband and wife, parent and child, brothers and sisters, friend and friend … The German folk are no spies, but he who does not report observations makes himself guilty of the crime as if he had committed the error himself and will be so punished.”

The German people were encouraged - more than that, threatened - into reporting one another if they saw someone disrespecting the Führer. It’s hard for someone from a Western liberal democracy to understand just how big of a deal this was.

One illustration of how seriously this was taken is found near the end of the book: she tells of a doctor who had to go and defend himself before a hearing. The reason was, someone had reported him for turning off the radio while Hitler was speaking. It turns out he turned the radio off because he was tending to a sick child was unable to hear the child’s heartbeat. As it happens, this particular doctor was acquitted - but I’m sure there were others who would not have been so lucky.

The point is that the State demanded absolute loyalty, unquestioning obedience. To question the actions of the State was to commit treason and to invite punishment. And there were an increasing number of times where the State required loyalty:

• It was not optional to say “Heil Hitler”. Waln tells, early on in the book, of how one fellow passenger on the tram crossing from Belgium to Germany could not pass the border because she persisted in saying “Grüss Gott” — the traditional German greeting — rather than “Heil Hitler”.

• There was an older, retired man who taught music - not to earn a living, but simply because he loved to teach. He stopped teaching because State bureacracy required him to register in Berlin, requiring him to bring documentation of his family history going back 100 years (to ensure that he had no Jewish blood). Rather than standing up against this, he simply decided to give in and stop teaching.

• The Nazis introduced National Service, a man from the government came to see a vineyard farming family Waln was staying with. Their eldest son was of the age where he was due to do his National Service. The farmer protested that working on the vineyard was serving his country, but said that they were law-abiding people and would obey.

In short, the tentacles of government bureaucracy began to grip people more and more tightly. Those in positions of power would either accept the regime, or they would be sacked (or, worse, put in concentration camps as enemies of the State). Most people, when faced with this option, unsurprisingly decided to quietly put their doubts aside and go along with what they were told.

Hitler was not ‘literally Hitler’

Let me finish this section by outlining a little of what Hitler was really like - in public, at least. People think of Hitler as the most evil man who ever lived and see him as some kind of demonic monster. It’s easy to think of him from this distance and wonder how stupid the German people could have been to fall for him. But, as always, the truth is more complicated. Waln shares three memories of him, and I will quote this first one in full:

The people of a hamlet had long disputed with the people of a Dorf beyond the hill regarding their respective rights in a wood. There seemed to be no end to this quarrel. Now that they had a Führer, the people of the hamlet decided to present their case directly to him. They drew up a list of their grievances. The schoolmaster wrote the petition on a scroll in fine script. It was rolled and tied with Nazi ribbon. The Führer was due to go through on his way to a great assembly.

The tallest man was chosen to wave the petition. Early in the forenoon of the day, the whole population dressed in their Sunday clothes and lined up along the street. It was considerably after country dinner time when their Führer whizzed by. He was in a powerful car. He left ill-feeling behind him. “Adolf Hitler was born to the people, but he is a mighty man now. He does not see folk like us—except when he wishes to use us.”

Until evening they grumbled. Then, shortly after Abendbrot a young stranger arrived on a motor cycle. Their Führer had seen the petition waved. He had something so important to do that he could not stop for it. But he wanted it. He had sent this messenger to fetch it. They gave it gladly.

In less than a fortnight they had their answer. The dispute was to stop at once. It is forbidden for Germans to quarrel with each other. The man who brought this reply was to hear both sides, and the people were to abide by his decision … He held a joint meeting which everyone from both villages must attend. He led them in singing songs together. The people did as he decreed. The quarrel, two decades old, was over.

Just take a moment to let that sink in. How many Prime Ministers of Great Britain can you think of who would have taken an interest in a local quarrel between two villages? In fact, in such a situation today, who would even take an interest in a dispute like that?

Government ministers are lucky if they get a reply from the Prime Minister sometimes - let alone us plebs! Is it a surprise that people could think well of their Führer?

Let me give one final example:

The third incident was at a review of soldiers. Some people gave a party in their offices, and we were among those invited. Food and wine were served inside, and from a large balcony, through glasses, we could plainly see the officials’ platform as well as the marchers.

A company of aged veterans came along, one of them so feeble that I had just thought “He ought not to be walking”, when I was his Führer take notice of him. Herr Hitler had him taken out of the line. A chair was placed for him on the platform. Aglow with pleasure, the old soldier enjoyed the remainder of the review from a seat beside his standing Leader.

Does this sound like the action of a man who was ‘literally Hitler’?

When I was at Bible college, I remember learning about false teachers. Our tutor wisely said, “false teachers don’t come with a name badge.” He was absolutely right. It’s the same with fascists. Fascists don’t come with name badges. They can even appear to be decent people. It struck me that, just from those small vignettes, Hitler could probably have passed as a more decent guy than (say) Joe Biden or Keir Starmer. When did you ever seen them display humanity like Hitler displayed on those occasions?

Once again, I’m not trying to say that any modern politician is comparable to Hitler, but rather trying to make the point that fascists, dictators and authoritarians come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them might look like good, decent people. And that is precisely what we need to be concerned about.

Who are the fascists today?

Let’s turn to think about fascism in today’s world. We’ll leave aside the technical definition of a fascist and think instead about which groups are behaving most like the fascists. As I was reading through the book, what came to mind again and again was how eerily similar it all was to covid:

• A burgeoning goverment bureacracy which is taking more and more of people’s lives under its control;

• Anyone who questions the government orthodoxy is seen as an outcast;

• The use of propaganda to control the population;

• A lack of courage from people who should know better;

• Everything done in the name of the supposed ‘greater good’.

Of course, we were nowhere near as far as the Nazis: lockdown sceptics were not rounded up and sent to concentration camps! But I believe it was the closest that we in liberal Western democracies have come to fascism in a very long time. Which is not to say this is the only example - climate change and transgender ideology have similar tendencies, to name but two.

I find it very unsettling that people who can see fascism everywhere in their political opponents are unable to see it in themselves. It’s hard to comprehend what could cause this level of blindness; the lack of self-knowledge frankly beggars belief. At the same time, I believe that we mustn’t let the people decrying everything as fascism distract from the fact that we must always guard against fascism.

We must continually guard against fascism

One of the things I’ve been struck by in the US election over the last few weeks is the difference between the 2016 election and today. Back in 2016, a lot of people were talking about holding their nose and voting for Trump - i.e., acknowledging that he was a flawed candidate, but that it might be best to vote for him to keep Hillary Clinton out. By contrast, the last few weeks have seen more and more people flocking to Trump.

What’s changed? I think Trump has changed to some extent - I feel that he has mellowed. But the real change has been in the Democrats: the gloves are off, so to speak, and I feel there has been a very dark and anti-Christian element to the Democrats. Those on the right have seen the Democrats as morally evil, and it almost being a moral duty to vote for Trump. For example, Calvin Robinson said in his speech at a Trump rally: “Jesus Christ may not be on the ballot box - but the Jezebel is.”

The problem is, when politics come to be seen as ‘good vs evil’, it’s very easy to see your own side as being Good and the other side as being Evil. This is what we criticise the woke for all the time - the demonisation of everyone who disagrees as a morally evil person. However, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the newfound veneration of Donald Trump. For one, no political leader is the saviour — there is only one Saviour, Jesus Christ. For another, as far as I know, Trump is still not a Christian.

And there are some serious questions marks about Donald Trump. I don’t for a moment believe he’s a fascist, but he has close ties with globalist Peter Thiel - James Corbett has just written a three-part series about this. Trump is on record as boasting about the lockdowns. He may not be as bad as Kamala Harris and the Democrats, but we need to make no mistake that he is not on the side of the angels on every issue.

I’m not saying this to try and denigrate Trump. I believe that no human being is perfect, and no political leader will live up to all our expectations. I believe that the solution to all our problems is ultimately not political, it is spiritual. Therefore, only a spiritual solution will do - a political leader will never be enough.

However, it’s easy to get carried away in the heat of the moment. It’s easy to think that your preferred candidate can do more than politicians usually can. I saw this kind of attitude on display in the Clacton election earlier this year: people said “Let’s get Nigel [Farage] in - he’ll sort them out.” As soon as people knew it was Nigel Farage standing, not just the local Reform candidate, they flocked to him. It actually made me uncomfortable: I like Nigel — I voted for him — but he’s a man like any other. And, sadly, in the first few months I think he’s already proved to be something of a disappointment.

The point I am trying to make here is that the terribleness, even the evilness, of the alternative shouldn’t make us think that political leaders are our Saviours. We should never overlook the flaws in our own preferred candidates just because the alternatives are far worse. Think back to Nazi Germany - one of the things that caused people to accept Hitler was the belief that he was saving them from something worse. We must recognise authoritarianism for what it is, whether it comes from the right or left, whether it comes from ‘our’ side or ‘theirs’.

I can foresee a potential future where a leader from the right emerges who uses the languages of nationalism, who speaks strongly of traditional values and against the woke, who speaks against mass migration, who speaks against globalism - who yet doesn’t govern in a Christian way. Would the right accept a totalitarian leader who promised to sort out ‘the woke’, even if it meant they had to do wrong things to get there? Would the ends justify the means, if the cause was fighting against the modern globalist agenda? This is what I believe we must be careful against.

Let me finish with some words from Psalm 146:

Do not put your trust in princes,
in human beings, who cannot save.
When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
on that very day their plans come to nothing.
Blessed are those whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord their God.

Psalm 146:3-5

What we need to do, rather than putting our trust in earthly ‘princes’ or political leaders, is to hope in the Lord our God. He is the only one who alone is worthy of our confidence.