In the last post, we brought out the question sitting in the shadows throughout this series of posts.  What part did the church play in allowing the Nazi takeover of Germany?  We can never know what would have happened if more stood up and overtly resisted.  But that is one of the critical questions we must wrestle with in our day.  First, when will we stop supporting the general direction of travel?  Second, how will we resist?

Whatever we may feel is the driving force behind the changes, we surely must get our heads out of the sand and recognise the shifts that are taking place.  There are moral shifts regarding gender, sexuality and crime.  There are human rights shifts regarding free speech, free movement, the right to assemble, and bodily autonomy.  There are ideological shifts in respect to traditional religions, cult-like agendas, and globalist unaccountable power grabs.  The world could be a very different place in a very short time.

Morality and change – Even before the full extent of their atrocities were revealed, people knew the Nazi morality. “The Nazis claim that all that is beneficial to the German people is right.” (p192)  This, of course, meant that they could do whatever they liked.  When right and wrong are redefined, a culture is under threat.  We live in a culture where you are judged to be a threat to progress if your actions, words, and even thoughts do not support the approved narrative, the dominant ideology, or the power imposing religion. 

Why do people assume that the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to disagree will persist when those asserting their power are committed to a different morality?  If any try speaking against certain sanctions and medications, kneeling ceremonies, well-known religions, or theories in climate science, then they soon discover that there are consequences in our day.  There has been a major shift in the ethical foundations of our society – we must not pretend otherwise.

Democracy and change – People naively believe that societies change from good to bad in free and fair elections.  Sometimes that has happened.  But revolutionary change tends to require a crisis. “On the day after the Reichstag fire, a new law ‘for the protection of the people and the state against communist acts of violence’ was made public.  It had been obviously prepared beforehand. … This law deprived every citizen of his few remaining civil rights and left him at the mercy of the new masters and their heavily armed sluggers now elevated to the rank of authority. Person and home were no longer inviolate. Privacy of mail, telephone and telegram had ceased to exist. Freedom of speech, press and assembly was a thing of the past.” (p215)  It was not an election that changed everything but a manufactured crisis.  A crisis means that change can be imposed ‘for the good’ of the people. 

Individuals as the threat to change – As with every tyrannical takeover and revolutionary moment, the free-thinking individual is an instant threat to the people in power.  Germany had “confined itself to the deliberate destruction of the rights of all those who think independently and come to conclusions different from those of the masters of the Third Reich.” (p230)  We see the same thing when Communist revolutions grab hold of a country – immediately the useful idiots who helped create the crisis are a threat to be discarded, along with the educated, the religious leaders, the writers, the influencers.

The Nazis considered the “fourth battlefield” to be enemies from within the state.  So, they used the SS troops to bear arms freely as they brought terror and control to the nation.  The SA “brown shirts” were more of an accessory to the Nazis but were used either in uniform or in everyday clothes “to arouse enthusiasm among the masses.” The jubilant masses described by foreign press correspondents were usually “well-rehearsed SA formations.” They would create disturbances outside Jewish-run businesses, where the Gestapo would sweep in to arrest the owners for their own protection and dispatch them off to concentration camps.  Then, the SA performance would quiet down.  (See p250-251)

The recurring theme of thought crime came out strongly in the book: “None of those imprisoned under the pretext of protective confinement had committed crimes. Their only guilt in the eyes of the Nazis was to have opinions contrary to Nazi creed.” (p338)  A society can never be considered free when people are punished for holding specific opinions.

Is change a surprise? It is easy to assume that the German people were unaware of the evils of the Nazi regime until the secrets were revealed after the end of the Third Reich and the humbling death of Hitler in his bunker. “Again it must be emphasised, that everything that has taken place within the last five years has been publicly and repeatedly proclaimed by the Nazi regime long before it came to pass.  Only the degree in which early predictions have been fulfilled is a matter of surprise.” (p267)  I can’t help but wonder if such published predictions were also disparagingly called conspiracy theories a century ago.  There does seem to be a pattern – troubling things are proclaimed and published, the media run a different narrative, people quote those troubling things, the media decry those people as quacks and conspiracy nuts.  And then, sometimes very quickly, those troubling things turn out to be true.

In the next post in this series, we will consider more parallels to our time.