Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #697 Christian Fundamentalism and the Underground Reich

MP3 Side 1 | Side 2

The FamilyIntro­duc­tion: Recent decades have seen the growth of the Chris­t­ian Right, a major force within the Repub­li­can Party and on the Amer­i­can polit­i­cal land­scape itself. The Fam­ily, a recent book by Jeff Sharlet has gained con­sid­er­able trac­tion and sets forth the pro­found influ­ence wielded within U.S. power struc­ture by an orga­ni­za­tion called The Fam­ily, founded in the 1930’s by a Nor­we­gian immi­grant named Abram Vereide (usu­ally referred to by those famil­iar with him as “Abram.”) Although its pri­mary influ­ence is within the GOP, the Fam­ily has con­sid­er­able grav­i­tas within the Demo­c­ra­tic Party as well.

This pro­gram high­lights the organization’s pro­found rela­tion­ship with the Under­ground Reich and the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work. Vereide and his asso­ciates played a sig­nif­i­cant role in neu­tral­iz­ing the de– Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of Ger­many and the polit­i­cal reha­bil­i­ta­tion of Third Reich alumni for ser­vice both in the “New” Fed­eral Repub­lic of Ger­many and U.S. intel­li­gence. (Vereide is pic­tured below and at right with then Pres­i­dent Eisen­hower in 1960.)

Thus: “Between the Cold War estab­lish­ment and the reli­gious fer­vor of Abram and his allies, orga­ni­za­tions that came of age in the post­war era–the National Asso­ci­a­tion of Evan­gel­i­cals, Cam­pus Cru­sade, the Billy Gra­ham Cru­sade, Youth For Christ, the Nav­i­ga­tors, and many more–one finds the unex­plained pres­ence of men such as [Nazi agent Man­fred] Zapp, adapt­able men always ready to serve the pow­ers that be.”

After delin­eat­ing the pre-war and wartime careers in the United States of Nazi spies Man­fred Zapp (pic­tured above and at left) and Baron Ulrich von Gien­anth, the pro­gram notes that they were among those who became close asso­ciates of “Abram” in his “sav­ing” of Third Reich alumni for duty in the Cold War. They were typ­i­cal and by no means the worst of the Nazis recruited by Vereide and his associates.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Vereide’s “sav­ing” of Her­mann J. Abs (right), “HItler’s Banker” so that he might become “Adenauer’s Banker”. Vereide’s role in sav­ing man­u­fac­tur­ing plants of top Nazis from seizure by the Allies; Vereide and his asso­ciates’ suc­cess­ful efforts at aid­ing the rearm­ing of Ger­many for the Cold War; Vereide’s suc­cess­ful attempt to lift travel restric­tions on “for­mer” Gestapo offi­cer von Gien­anth; pro­jec­tions by anti-fascists dur­ing the war that the Third Reich’s plans to sur­vive mil­i­tary defeat would involve net­work­ing with reac­tionary U.S. fun­da­men­tal­ists; Nazi gen­eral Rein­hard Gehlen’s “post-intelligence” career as a reli­gious evangelist.

1. We begin by exam­in­ing the back­ground of Man­fred Zapp, a Nazi spy who became a close evan­gel­i­cal asso­ciate of Abram Vereide and the Family.

Man­fred Zapp, a native of Dus­sel­dorf by way of Pre­to­ria, mer­ited a line in the news when he stepped from an ocean liner onto the docks of New York City on Sep­tem­ber 22, 1938, a warm windy day at the edge of a South Atlantic hur­ri­cane. Just a few words in the New York Times’ “Ocean Trav­el­ers” col­umn, a list of the trav­el­ers of note buried in the back of the paper. By the time he left the United States, his depar­ture would win headlines. . . .

The Fam­ily by Jeff Sharlet; Harper Peren­nial (SC); Copy­right 2008 by Jeff Sharlet; ISBN 978–0-06–056005-8; p. 144.

2. Zapp ran the Transocean News Agency, a Nazi espi­onage and pro­pa­ganda out­fit dis­guised as a jour­nal­is­tic operation.

. . . Zapp had been given charge of the Amer­i­can offices of the Transocean News Agency, osten­si­bly the cre­ation of a group of unnamed Ger­man financiers. He had recently left a sim­i­lar post in South Africa. “It is of para­mount impor­tance,” the Ger­man charge d’affaires in Wash­ing­ton had writ­ten Zapp the month before his arrival, “that a cross­ing of wires with the work of the D.N.B.–Deutschland News Bureau–“be absolutely avoided.” DNN was trans­par­ently the tool of the Nazi regime and thus under con­stant scrutiny. Transocean, as an allegedly inde­pen­dent agency, might oper­ate more freely. “My task here in Amer­ica is so big and so dif­fi­cult,” Zapp wrote the Ger­man ambas­sador to South Africa a month after he arrived, “that it demands all my energies.”

Ibid.; p. 145.

3. Note that Zapp’s activ­i­ties in the U.S. involved net­work­ing with mem­bers of the New York elite whom he believed (in many cases cor­rectly) to be sym­pa­thetic to fas­cism. Like many Nazi and fas­cist sym­pa­thiz­ers, Zapp dis­dained many of the super­fi­cial trap­pings of fas­cism, while valu­ing the cor­po­ratist phi­los­o­phy at the foun­da­tion of the system.

What was Zapp’s task? Dur­ing his Amer­i­can tenure, he flit­ted in black tie and tails from Fifth Avenue to Park Avenue enjoy­ing the hos­pi­tal­ity of rich men and beau­ti­ful women–the gos­sip colum­nist Wal­ter Winchell wrote of Zapp’s “mad­cap girl­friend,” a big-spending soci­ety girl who seemed to con­sume at least as much of Zapp’s atten­tion as the news. He avoided as much as he could dis­cus­sions of what he con­sid­ered the tedium of pol­i­tics. His friends knew he had dined with Cordell Hull, the sec­re­tary of state, and Roo­sevelt him­self, and some must also have known that he had worked quietly–and ille­gally, if one must be technical–against the president’s reelec­tion. But one did not ask ques­tions. He trav­eled, though no one was quite sure where he went off to. One moment he was hov­er­ing over the tele­type in Man­hat­tan; the next he was to be found in Havana, on the occa­sion of a meet­ing of for­eign min­is­ters. Some might have called him a Nazi agent, there to encour­age Cuba’s inclinations–a pop­u­lar radio pro­gram, trans­mit­ted across the Caribbean, was called The Nazi Hour–but Zapp could truth­fully reply that he rarely stirred from the lobby of the Hotel Nacional, where he sat sip­ping cock­tails, happy to buy drinks for any man–or, prefer­ably, lady–who cared to chat with him. . . .

Ibid.; pp. 145–146.

4. More about Zapp’s net­work­ing with ele­ments of the Amer­i­can elite who har­bored fas­cist sympathies.

. . . . To Zapp, total­i­tar­i­an­ism–the term he pre­ferred to fas­cism–was, once pruned of its absur­di­ties, a sen­si­ble and lovely idea. The torches and the “long knives,” the death’s-head and all that red-faced singing and table pound­ing, these activ­i­ties Zapp did not care for. He actu­ally pre­ferred life in Amer­ica, the canyons of Man­hat­tan and the gin-lit bal­conies of the city’s best peo­ple, con­ver­sa­tions that did not begin with “Heil Hitler!” Zapp signed his let­ters with this invo­ca­tion, and a por­trait of the Fuhrer hung in his office, but Zapp the jour­nal­ist was too sen­si­tive a record­ing device to enjoy all that arm snap­ping. If only Man­hat­tan and Munich, Wash­ing­ton and Berlin, could be merged. It was a mat­ter not of war­fare but of har­mony, democracy’s bick­er­ing and bile giv­ing way to the “new con­cep­tion,” in which power and will would be one.

Ibid.; p. 146.

5. Even­tu­ally, Zapp’s espi­onage activ­i­ties caused him to fall afoul of the U.S. authorities.

Within a year, how­ever, Zapp found cause to resist return­ing to that fine new sys­tem. After a series of unsolved mur­ders and per­plex­ing explo­sions and inter­cepted trans­mis­sions led the FBI to raid his front orga­ni­za­tions in Boston, Bal­ti­more, Buf­falo, Den­ver, New Orleans, Philadel­phia, Pitts­burgh, and Zapp’s spar­tan office off Fifth Avenue, where they found what they believed to be evi­dence of the orches­tra­tion of it all, Zapp began to recon­sider his enthu­si­asm for Hitler’s new order. He had failed the Fuhrer. How would his will judge him? What power would be exerted in the Gestapo “beat­ing rooms” that Transocean employ­ees had once con­sid­ered them­selves priv­i­leged to tour?

The FBI seized him and his chief deputy and whisked them away to cold, bare rooms, on Ellis Island, no less, where not long before, the rab­ble of Europe had been processed into “mon­grel” Amer­ica, land of “degen­er­ate democ­racy,” as Roo­sevelt him­self quoted Zapp in a speech denounc­ing Germany’s “strat­egy of terror.” . . .

Ibid.; pp. 146–147.

6. Another of the Nazi agents with whom Abram Vereide and the Fam­ily would net­work after the war was Baron Ulrich von Gien­anth, the Gestapo chief of the Ger­man embassy in Wash­ing­ton and a mem­ber of the SS.

. . . . On the other were men such as Zapp. Along with a D.C.-based diplo­mat named Ulrich von Gien­anth (whom he would rejoin after the war in Abram’s prayer meet­ings), Zapp con­sid­ered the com­ing con­flict between the United States and the Reich one to be resolved through quiet con­ver­sa­tion, between Ger­man gen­tle­men and Amer­i­can “indus­tri­al­ists and State Depart­ment men.”

Von Gien­anth, a mus­cu­lar, sandy-haired man whose dull expres­sion dis­guised a chilly intel­li­gence, “seems to be a very agree­able fel­low,” Zapp wrote his brother, who had stud­ied in Munich with the baron-to-be. Only sec­ond sec­re­tary in the embassy, von Gien­anth main­tained a fright­en­ing grip over his fel­low diplo­mats. He was an under­cover SS man, the ears and eyes of the “Reichsmin­istry of Proper Enlight­en­ment and Pro­pa­ganda,” charged with keep­ing watch over its secret Amer­i­can oper­a­tions. He was, in short, the Gestapo chief in Amer­ica. While Zapp wor­ried about his legal prospects in the Indian Sum­mer of 1940, von Gien­anth was likely wait­ing for news of a major oper­a­tion in New Jer­sey: the det­o­na­tion of the Her­cules gun­pow­der plant, an explo­sion that on Sep­tem­ber 12 killed forty-seven and sent shock­waves so strong that they snapped wind into the sails of boaters in far-off Long Island Sound. . . .

. . . . Von Gienanth’s ini­tia­tives were whim­si­cal by com­par­i­son. Once for instance, he paid a pilot to dump pro-Nazi anti­war fliers on the White House lawn. He devoted him­self to chang­ing Goebbels’ gold into dol­lars, and those dol­lars into laun­dered “dona­tions” to the Amer­ica First Com­mit­tee, where unwit­ting isolationists–Abram allies such as Sen­a­tor Arthur Van­den­berg and Amer­ica First Pres­i­dent Robert M. Hanes among them–stumped for recog­ni­tion of the “fact” on Hitler’s inevitability.

Like Zapp, von Gien­anth con­sid­ered him­self a com­mon­sense man.

And Zapp–Zapp sim­ply reported the news and sold it on the wire. Or gave it away. To the papers of Argentina, Mex­ico, Brazil and to the small-town edi­tors of America’s gullible heart­land, Zapp offered Transocean reports for almost noth­ing. In some South Amer­i­can coun­tries, 30 per­cent or more of for­eign news–the enthu­si­as­tic wel­come given con­quer­ing Ger­man forces, the Jew­ish cabal in Wash­ing­ton, the moral rot of the Amer­i­can people–was pro­duced by or chan­neled through Zapp’s offices. On the side, he com­piled a report on Soviet-inspired “Pol­ish atroc­i­ties” against the long-suffering Ger­man peo­ple and dis­trib­uted it to thou­sands of lead­ing Amer­i­cans, the sort sym­pa­thetic to the plight of the per­se­cuted Chris­t­ian. Zapp’s sym­pa­thetic nature would prove, after the war, to be as gen­uine as his dis­torted sense of history’s victims. . . .

Ibid.; pp. 147–148.

7. Next, the broad­cast sets forth Abram [Vereide] and the Family’s posi­tion­ing as a vehi­cle for the recruit­ment of Nazis to serve both the U.S. and the “New” Fed­eral Repub­lic of Ger­many. The orga­ni­za­tion involved in this served as a prin­ci­pal moral com­pass for much of the Amer­i­can power elite dur­ing the Cold War and through the present. The orga­ni­za­tions which res­cued and reha­bil­i­tated Third Reich alumni are at the foun­da­tion of the con­tem­po­rary evan­gel­i­cal establishment.

. . . Estab­lish­ment Cold War­riors of [Mar­shall Plan admin­is­tra­tor Don­ald C.] Stone’s ilk dom­i­nate the his­tory books. Zapp, the ally with an ugly past, is his dark shadow. But Abram and the influ­ence of his fel­low fun­da­men­tal­ists would remain invis­i­ble for decades, their influ­ence unmarked by media and aca­d­e­mic estab­lish­ments. The role played by fun­da­men­tal­ists in refash­ion­ing the world’s great­est fas­cist power into a democ­racy would go unno­ticed. So, too, would the role of fascism–or, rather, that of fascism’s ghost–in shap­ing the newly inter­na­tion­al­ist ambi­tion of evan­gel­i­cal con­ser­v­a­tives in the post­war era.

Between the Cold War estab­lish­ment and the reli­gious fer­vor of Abram and his allies, orga­ni­za­tions that came of age in the post­war era–the National Asso­ci­a­tion of Evan­gel­i­cals, Cam­pus Cru­sade, the Billy Gra­ham Cru­sade, Youth For Christ, the Nav­i­ga­tors, and many more–one finds the unex­plained pres­ence of men such as Zapp, adapt­able men always ready to serve the pow­ers that be. From Amer­i­can Chris­ten­dom, Zapp and his ilk took the cloak of redemp­tion, cheap grace, in the words of Diet­rich Bon­ho­ef­fer, one of their most famous vic­tims. To it, they offered some­thing harder to define. This is an inves­ti­ga­tion of that trans­mis­sion; the last mes­sage from the Min­istry of Proper Enlight­en­ment; the story of Amer­i­can fundamentalism’s Ger­man connection. . . .

Ibid.; pp. 151–152.

8. When Abram got around to “sav­ing” Third Reich alumni for ser­vice to the “New Ger­many,” as well as U.S. intel­li­gence, he selected some gen­uinely ripe individuals.

Gedat was among the least tainted of the men that Abram and Fricke, and later Gedat him­self, gath­ered into prayer cells to help forge the new West Ger­man state. But they were repen­tant men, this they tes­ti­fied to at every ses­sion. Repen­tant for what? It was hard to say. Every one of them claimed to have suf­fered dur­ing the war years. Men such as Her­mann J. Abs, “Hitler’s banker” and a vice pres­i­dent of Abram’s Inter­na­tional Chris­t­ian Lead­er­ship (ICL), Ger­man divi­sion; Gus­tav Schmelz, a man­u­fac­turer of chem­i­cal weapons; Paul Rohrbach, the hyper­na­tion­al­ist ide­o­logue whose con­fla­tion of Ger­many with Chris­tian­ity, and most of Europe with Ger­many, had inspired the Nazis to under­stand their war-hunger as divine; and Gen­eral Hans Spei­del, who had accepted the sur­ren­der of Paris on behalf of the Fuhrer in 1940, insisted that he had never believed Hitler, had been forced into his arms by the Red Men­ace, had regret­ted the unfor­tu­nate alliance with such a vul­gar fool, a dis­grace to God’s true plan for Ger­many. They had done noth­ing wrong; they, too, if one gave it some though, were victims.

Per­haps some of them were. That is one of the many clever strate­gies of fas­cism: per­se­cu­tion belongs to the pow­er­ful, accord­ing to its rules, both to dole out and to claim as the honor due mar­tyrs. Abram did not ask ques­tions; he sim­ply took out his wash­cloth and got busy with the blood of the lamb. He scrubbed his “new men” clean. Did it work? Abs, “Hitler’s banker,” became “Adenauer’s banker,” a key fig­ure in the West Ger­man government’s finan­cial res­ur­rec­tion. Schmelz kept his fac­tory. Rohrbach wrote on, author­ing trib­utes to Abram’s Inter­na­tional Chris­t­ian Lead­er­ship in the Frank­furter All­ge­meine.

And Spei­del? He was a spe­cial case, a co con­spir­a­tor with Rom­mel in the attempted assas­si­na­tion of Hitler, the “July Plot” of 1944. There was some­thing almost Amer­i­can about him; like Buch­man, like Bar­ton, he con­sid­ered Hitler’s racial poli­cies a dis­trac­tion from his really good ideas. For this ambiva­lence, the Allies rewarded him: he served as com­man­der in chief of NATO ground forces from 1957 to 1963, when Charles de Gaulle, unper­suaded of his recon­struc­tion, insisted on his ouster.

Such men are only a few of those whom Abram helped, and by no means the worst. There were Zapp and von Gien­anth, there were “lit­tle Nazis” Abram cham­pi­oned for U.S. intel­li­gence posi­tions, and there were big ones: Baron Kon­stan­tin von Neu­rath, Hitler’s first for­eign min­is­ter, and Gen­eral Oswald Pohl, the last SS com­man­der of the con­cen­tra­tion camps, among them. For those beyond hope of blank-slate rein­ven­tion, Abram and his web of Chris­t­ian cells led med­ical mercy (von Neu­rath, sen­tenced to fif­teen years for crimes against human­ity, was released early in 1953; Abram took up his case up his case upon learn­ing from von Neurath’s daugh­ter that her father, clas­si­fied as a “major War Crim­i­nal,” was receiv­ing less than exem­plary den­tal care in prison) or expediency(it was unjust, they felt, that Pohl, who while impris­oned by the Allies wrote a mem­oir called Credo: My Way to God–a Christ-besotted path that did not include acknowl­edg­ing his role in mass murder–should be left won­der­ing when he would be hanged.)

When occu­pa­tion forces charged Abs with war crimes, he offered a novel defense. He did not deny what he had done for Hitler; he sim­ply declared that he had done it for money, fas­cism be damned. He would gladly do as much for the Allies. And so he did, a task at which he so excelled that he would come to be known as the wiz­ard of the “Ger­man Mir­a­cle.” His past was forgotten–a phrase that must be writ­ten in pas­sive voice in order to sug­gest the gen­tle eli­sion of his­tory in the post­war years, under­takenby those eager to see a con­ser­v­a­tive Ger­man state rise from the ashes, a sober son of Hitler’s father­land that would inherit the old man’s hatred for one rad­i­cal­ism but not his love of another. . . .

Ibid.; pp. 165–167.

9.  Sen­a­tor Alexan­der Wiley (R-Wisconsin) was another close asso­ciate of Abram’s. Wiley was instru­men­tal in the suc­cess­fully lob­by­ing (along with Abram and his aide Otto Fricke) for the rearm­ing of the Ger­man army against the for­mer Soviet Union.

. . . . Sen­a­tor Wiley wanted total war. Take the men of Hitler’s old panzer divi­sions, bless ‘em under Christ, and point ‘em toward Moscow. Abram’s Ger­man point man, Otto Fricke, wasn’t so blood-thirsty; he merely wanted twenty-five rearmed Ger­man divi­sions to slow the Russ­ian inva­sion he saw com­ing. “What Do We Chris­tians Think of Re-Armament?” was the theme of one of Fricke’s cell meet­ings in 1950. They were con­flicted, tempted to take “mali­cious joy that the ‘Allies’ are now forced to empty with spoons the bit­ter soup that has been served by the Rus­sians.” The judg­ments at Nurem­berg had dis­hon­ored the Wer­ma­cht, and the dis­man­tling had insulted and robbed Germany’s great indus­tri­al­ists, Krupp and Weiza­cker and Bosch–all well rep­re­sented in Fricke’s cells. By all rights they should stand down, refuse to rearm, let the Amer­i­cans defend Chris­ten­dom from the Slavs. But there it was: Chris­ten­dom.  They were Chris­t­ian men, cho­sen not by a nation but by Jesus him­self to lead their peo­ple into the “Order” God revealed to them in their prayers. “To accom­plish these tasks,” the Frank­furt cell con­cluded, “the state needs power and this pow­er­ful­ness is indis­pens­able for the sake of love.” . . .

Ibid.; p. 171.

10. Vereide and the Fam­ily were suc­cess­ful in obtain­ing per­mis­sion for for­mer SS/Gestapo offi­cer von Gien­anth to travel out­side of Germany.

. . . . Von Gien­anth was bound to the Father­land. This, he com­plained to Abram, was an imped­i­ment to recon­struc­tion. He’d wanted to attend a con­fer­ence in Atlantic City with fur­ther ideas of expan­sion in mind. Would the Amer­i­can mil­i­tary really say that a man of his stature would blem­ish the board­walk? He was on a list of unde­sir­ables, he had learned from cer­tain connections–probably ICL men within the occu­pa­tion. This would be “unde­sir­able,” he thought, if he had been a com­mu­nist. “But I don’t see any sense in includ­ing peo­ple of my attitude”–ex-fascists ready to make com­mon cause with the United States.

Among the many tes­ti­monies von Gien­anth col­lected on his own behalf was a let­ter from an Amer­i­can diplomat’s wife who insisted the baron had not been a Nazi so much as an “ide­al­ist.” Even­tu­ally, von Gien­anth had believed, “the good and con­ser­v­a­tive ele­ment of the Ger­man peo­ple would gain con­trol.” Fas­cism had been like strong med­i­cine, unpleas­ant but nec­es­sary to what von Gien­anth had always believed would be the reestab­lish­ment of rule by elites like him­self. “In the com­ing years of recon­struc­tion,” his advo­cate wrote, “such men will be needed who can be trusted.”

Abram con­tacted the Com­bined Travel Board that decided on which for­mer Nazis could be allowed to leave the coun­try. The baron was needed , Abram insisted. There were high Chris­t­ian coun­cils to be held in The Hague. “Expe­dite the nec­es­sary permit.”

Should that argu­ment prove inad­e­quate, Abram hired von Gienanth’s wife, Karein, as a host­ess on call for Amer­i­cans trav­el­ing on Chris­t­ian mis­sions. She was an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen, though she’d spent the war with her SS offi­cer hus­band. Now her Amer­i­can pass­port was being threat­ened. Abram saved it. That sum­mer, he sent the baron and his wife a gift of sort: a con­gress­man from Cal­i­for­nia, to be a guest on the baron’s estate. The fol­low­ing win­ter Sen­a­tor Frank Carl­son vis­ited. “As you know,” Abram advised Karein, “he is one of the clos­est friends and advis­ers to Eisenhower.”

A “serene con­fi­dence has filled me,” she replied, “as to Pres­i­dent Eisenhower’s guid­ance by God.” That sum­mer, her hus­band flew with her to Eng­land, his pass­port evi­dently restored.

Ibid.; pp. 173–174.

11. Next, the pro­gram notes a func­tion con­vened at the cas­tle of the Teu­tonic Order (Teu­tonic Knights) in Bavaria. (For more about the his­tory of the Teu­tonic Knights, see Paul Winkler’s The Thousand-Year Con­spir­acy, avail­able for down­load for free on this web­site.) Note that major play­ers from the Ger­man power elite, busi­ness part­ners with their car­tel asso­ciates in the U.S. and else­where in the West, as well as key polit­i­cal fig­ures, were lec­tured to by Chris­t­ian fun­da­men­tal­ist “converts”–“some of the best minds of the old regime.”

The assem­bled received “a let­ter of repen­tance for the sins of denaz­i­fi­ca­tion signed by more than thirty con­gress­men includ­ing Wiley and Cape­hart and a young Richard Nixon.

. . . . The first meet­ing at Cas­tle Mainau had taken place in 1949, the same year the Allies allowed Ger­mans to begin gov­ern­ing them­selves again. The 1951 meet­ing was planned to mark what Abram con­sid­ered the com­plete moral rehabilitation–in just two years–of Ger­many. Abram wanted the Amer­i­cans to go to them, a grand con­tin­gent of sen­a­tors and representatives.

. . . . Gen­eral Spei­del was there, as was Rohrbach, the pro­pa­gan­dist: There were rep­re­sen­ta­tives from the major Ger­man banks and from Krupp and Bosch, and there was the pres­i­dent of Stan­dard Oil’s Ger­man divi­sion. There was at least one Ger­man cab­i­net mem­ber, par­lia­men­tar­i­ans, may­ors, a dozen or more judges. A U-boat com­man­der, famed for tor­pe­do­ing ships off the coast of Vir­ginia, cut a dash­ing fig­ure. A gag­gle of aris­to­crats, minor princes and princesses, barons and counts and mar­graves were intim­i­dated by some of the best minds of the old regime. There was the finan­cial genius Her­mann J. Abs, and a fas­cist edi­tor who hd once been a com­rade of the rad­i­cal the­o­rist Wal­ter Ben­jamin before throw­ing his lot in with the Nazis.

Wal­lace Haines spoke for Abram. He stayed up all night before his lec­ture, pray­ing for the spirit that spoke aloud to his men­tor. The Amer­i­cans, God told him to say, were thrilled with the “eager­ness” of the Ger­mans to for­get the war. The Amer­i­cans came to the Ger­mans hum­bled, he told them. Haines brought proof of their new-found wis­dom: a let­ter of repen­tance for the sins of denaz­i­fi­ca­tion signed by more than thirty con­gress­men includ­ing Wiley and Cape­hart and a young Richard Nixon. . . .

Ibid.; pp. 175–176.

12. Even­tu­ally, Vereide, the Fam­ily and their Nazi and fas­cist asso­ciates (on both sides of the Atlantic) were suc­cess­ful in get­ting the rig­or­ous de-Nazification pro­gram rescinded. Note the ref­er­ence to the “Mor­gen­thau boys.” This is a ref­er­ence to for­mer Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Robert Mor­gen­thau, who favored a rig­or­ous approach to de-Nazification that included the de-industrialization of Ger­many. For more about this topic, see FTR #578, as well as All Hon­or­able Men, avail­able for down­load for free on this website.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance is the fact that Vereide was able to inter­cede on behalf of indus­trial plants to pre­vent their de-Nazification.In this regard, Vereide was doing the work not of the Lord, but of the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work.

. . . . For years, Man­fred Zapp had been Abram’s harsh­est cor­re­spon­dent, con­stantly warn­ing that the “man on the street” with whom he seemed to spend a great deal of time had had enough of America’s empty promises. Amer­ica had com­mit­ted “men­tal cru­elty,” he charged, hold­ing “so-called war crim­i­nals” in red coats–the uni­forms of the Lands­berg Prison–awaiting exe­cu­tion indefinitely.

Abram agreed, and sent to the occu­pa­tion gov­ern­ment let­ters signed by dozens of con­gress­men demand­ing action.

Amer­ica pre­vented Ger­man indus­try from feed­ing the nation, Zapp argued.

Abram agreed, and inter­vened time and again on behalf of Ger­man fac­to­ries. He saved as many as he could, though a steel foundry named for Her­mann Goer­ing was beyond even his pow­ers of redemption.

Amer­ica had put left­ists and trade union­ists and Bol­she­viks in power, Zapp complained.

Abram agreed. The cleans­ing of the Amer­i­can occu­pa­tion gov­ern­ment became an obses­sion, the sub­ject of his meet­ings with the Amer­i­can high com­mis­sioner John J. McCloy and his weekly prayer meet­ings with congressmen.

“Ide­al­ists” were pre­vented from serv­ing their peo­ple, said Zapp. The man on the street was los­ing faith in the Amer­i­can reli­gion. “Free­dom in their inter­pre­ta­tion is the ideal for which we shall fight and die but the real­ity is noth­ing else but a beau­ti­ful word for ser­vices for West­ern pow­ers . . . The word free­dom is not taken seri­ously anymore.”

Within a few years, nobody cared. The “Mor­gen­thau Boys” were as much a part of the past as the his­tory no Ger­man cared to speak of. . . .

Ibid.; pp. 177–178.

13. Pub­lished before the 1944 Nor­mandy inva­sion, Curt Riess’ The Nazis Go Under­ground fore­cast that the Third Reich’s strat­egy for going under­ground would involve liai­son with Amer­i­can Protes­tant fundamentalists.

Also of inter­est to Berlin—particularly in view of the com­ing under­ground fight of the Nazis—must be the Fun­da­men­tal­ist Protes­tants, who have a con­sid­er­able fol­low­ing in Michi­gan, Kansas, Col­orado, and Min­nesota. To be sure, some of the Fun­da­men­tal­ists are among the most coura­geous fight­ers for democ­racy, but a great many of them are def­i­nitely pro-Hitler. Their rea­son for this stand is that Fun­da­men­tal­ists do not believe in free­dom of reli­gion, and they do believe that the Jews should be pun­ished because they killed Christ. They say that Hitler has been sent by God to ‘save Chris­tian­ity and destroy athe­is­tic Com­mu­nism.’ To many of them Japan is the ‘ori­en­tal out­post of Chris­tian­ity’ des­tined to save Asia from the dan­ger of a ‘Com­mu­nis­tic China.’

The Nazis Go Under­ground; by Curt Riess; Copy­right 1944 by Curt Riess; Dou­ble­day, Doran and Co., Inc. [HC]; pp. 125–126. Library of Con­gress Con­trol Num­ber: 44007162.

14. In the con­text of this dis­cus­sion, it should be recalled that Nazi spy chief Rein­hard Gehlen became an evan­ge­list after his for­mal retire­ment from being the head of the Ger­man intel­li­gence ser­vice. [Chief of Hitler’s intel­li­gence appa­ra­tus for the East­ern front in World War II, Gehlen jumped to the CIA with his entire orga­ni­za­tion which became: the CIA’s depart­ment of Russ­ian and East­ern Euro­pean affairs, the de-facto NATO intel­li­gence orga­ni­za­tion and finally the BND, the intel­li­gence ser­vice of the Fed­eral Repub­lic of Germany.]

In this con­text, it should be remem­bered that Gehlen reported to Bormann’s secu­rity chief, Hein­rich Muller and that he was clear­ing his post­war actions taken in con­junc­tion with US intel­li­gence with Admi­ral von Doenitz (Hitler’s nom­i­nal suc­ces­sor as head of state) and Gen­eral Franz Halder, his for­mer chief-of-staff. In his oper­a­tions, Gehlen was oper­at­ing as part of the Under­ground Reich.

Today, on the thresh­old of three score years and ten, Gen­eral Rein­hard Gehlen has found a sur­pris­ing new field of activ­i­ties. He has become an evan­ge­list. With still unim­paired energy he has taken over the direc­tion of a cam­paign for build­ing new churches and schools for the Evan­gel­i­cal Church in Catholic Bavaria. After a life of seclu­sion he fre­quently attends meet­ings all over the province at which appeals for new funds are launched; on occa­sion he does not dis­dain to visit mem­bers of his reli­gious com­mu­nity in order to encour­age the enter­prise and to pass the beg­ging bowl. . .

Gehlen: Spy of the Cen­tury; by E.H. Cookridge; 1973 [SC] Pyra­mid Books; Copy­right 1971 by Euro­pean Copy­right Com­pany Lim­ited; ISBN 0–515-03154–2; p. 450.

Discussion

4 comments for “FTR #697 Christian Fundamentalism and the Underground Reich”

  1. This piece by Ed Kil­gore uses a great term for the theocrats mas­querad­ing as “Con­sti­tu­tional Con­ser­v­a­tives”: “Con-Cons”:

    TPM Cafe: Opin­ion
    The So-Called ‘Lib­er­tar­ian Moment’ Is Engi­neered By The Chris­t­ian Right

    By Ed Kil­gore
    Pub­lished August 13, 2014, 6:00 AM EDT

    There’s been quite the buzz in the chat­ter­ing classes this week over Robert Draper’s sug­ges­tion in the New York Times Mag­a­zine that the Repub­li­can Party, and per­haps even the nation, may finally pre­pared for a “lib­er­tar­ian moment,” likely through the agency of the shrewd and flex­i­ble politi­cian Rand Paul. It’s obvi­ous, in fact, that some of the aging hip­sters Draper talks to who have been labor­ing in the lib­er­tar­ian fields for decades glimpse over the hori­zon a recon­structed GOP that can reverse the instinc­tive loathing of mil­len­ni­als for the Old Folks’ Party.

    Unfor­tu­nately, to the extent there is some­thing that can be called a “lib­er­tar­ian moment” in the Repub­li­can Party and the con­ser­v­a­tive move­ment, it owes less to the work of the Cato Insti­tute than to a force gen­uine lib­er­tar­i­ans clutch­ing their copies of Atlas Shrugged are typ­i­cally hor­ri­fied by: the Chris­t­ian Right. In the emerg­ing ide­o­log­i­cal enter­prise of “con­sti­tu­tional con­ser­vatism,” theocrats are the senior part­ners, just as they have largely been in the Tea Party Move­ment, even though lib­er­tar­i­ans often get more attention.

    There’s no uni­ver­sal def­i­n­i­tion of “con­sti­tu­tional con­ser­vatism.” The appar­ent coiner of the term, the Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz, used it to argue for a tem­per­ate approach to polit­i­cal con­tro­versy that’s largely alien to those who have embraced the “brand.” Indeed, it’s most often become a sort of dog whis­tle scat­tered through speeches, slo­gans and bios on var­i­ous cam­paign trails to sig­nify that the bearer is hos­tile to com­pro­mise and faith­ful to fixed con­ser­v­a­tive prin­ci­ples, unlike the Repub­li­cans who have been so prone to trim and pre­var­i­cate since Barry Gold­wa­ter proudly went down in flames. The most active early Con-Con was Michele Bach­mann, who rarely went more than a few min­utes dur­ing her 2012 pres­i­den­tial cam­paign with­out utter­ing it. It’s now very promi­nently asso­ci­ated with Ted Cruz, who, accord­ing to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze has emerged as “the new standard-bearer for con­sti­tu­tional con­ser­vatism.” And it’s the pre­ferred self-identification for Rand Paul as well.

    What Con-Con most often seems to con­note beyond an uncom­pro­mis­ing atti­tude on spe­cific issues is the belief that strict lim­i­ta­tions on the size, scope and cost of gov­ern­ment are eter­nally cor­rect for this coun­try, regard­less of pub­lic opin­ion or cir­cum­stances. Thus vio­la­tions of this “con­sti­tu­tional” order are eter­nally ille­git­i­mate, no mat­ter what the Supreme Court says or who has won the last election.

    More com­monly, Con-Cons rein­force this idea of a semi-divine con­sti­tu­tional order by endow­ing it with — quite lit­er­ally — divine ori­gins. This is why David Barton’s largely dis­cred­ited “Chris­t­ian Nation” revi­sion­ist his­to­ries of the Founders remain so highly influ­en­tial in con­ser­v­a­tive cir­cles, and why Bar­ton him­self is wel­come com­pany in the camps of Con-Con pols rang­ing from Cruz and Bach­mann to Rick Perry and Mike Huck­abee. This is why vir­tu­ally all Con-Cons con­flate the Con­sti­tu­tion with the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, which enabled them to sneak both Nat­ural and Divine Law (includ­ing most con­spic­u­ously a pre-natal Right to Life) into the nation’s organic gov­ern­ing structure.

    What a lot of those who instinc­tively think of con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians as hos­tile to lib­er­tar­ian ideas of strict gov­ern­ment per­sis­tently miss is that diviniz­ing untram­meled cap­i­tal­ism has been a grow­ing habit on the Chris­t­ian Right for decades. Per­haps more impor­tantly, the idea of the “secular-socialist gov­ern­ment” being an oppres­sor of reli­gious lib­erty, whether it’s by main­tain­ing pub­lic schools that teach “rel­a­tivism” and evo­lu­tion, or by enforc­ing the “Holo­caust” of legal­ized abor­tion, or by insist­ing on anti-discrimination rules that dis­com­fit “Chris­t­ian busi­nesses,” has made Chris­t­ian con­ser­v­a­tives highly prone to, and actu­ally a major par­tic­i­pant in, the anti-government rhetoric of the Tea Party. Beyond that, the essen­tial tea party view of Amer­ica as “excep­tional” in eschew­ing the bad polit­i­cal habits of the rest of the world is highly con­gru­ent with, and actu­ally owes a lot to, the old Protes­tant notion of the United States as a global Redeemer Nation and a “shin­ing city on a hill.”

    So per­haps the ques­tion we should be ask­ing is not whether the Chris­t­ian Right and other “tra­di­tional” con­ser­v­a­tives can accept a Rand Paul-led “lib­er­tar­ian” takeover of the con­ser­v­a­tive move­ment and the GOP, but whether “lib­er­tar­i­ans” are an inde­pen­dent fac­tor in con­ser­v­a­tive pol­i­tics to begin with. After all, most of the Repub­li­can politi­cians we think of as “libertarian”–whether it’s Rand Paul or Justin Amash or Mike Lee–are also paid-up culture-war oppo­nents of legal­ized abor­tion, Com­mon Core, and other hea­then­ish prac­tices. As Heather Digby Par­ton noted tartly ear­lier this week:

    [T]he line between theocrats and lib­er­tar­ian Repub­li­cans is very, very faint. Why do you think they’ve bas­tardized the con­cept of “Reli­gious Lib­erty” to mean the right to inflict your reli­gion on oth­ers? It appeals to peo­ple who fash­ion them­selves as lib­er­tar­i­ans but really only care about their taxes, guns and weed. Those are the non-negotiable items. Every­thing else is on offer.

    And then there’s the well-known but under-reported long-term rela­tion­ship of Ron and Rand Paul with the openly theo­cratic U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion Party, a Con-Con inspi­ra­tional font that no Repub­li­can politi­cian is likely to embrace these days.

    ...

    Part of what makes the courtship and fos­ter­ing of the Con-Con strain of pol­i­tics so fas­ci­nat­ing is that it clearly involves plu­to­crats that aren’t, them­selves, theocrats but are more than will­ing to get into under the theo­cratic sheets if it suits them and are also run­ning empires seem­ingly bent on bring­ing about envi­ron­men­tal, finan­cial, and socioe­co­nomic apoc­a­lypses. So you have to won­der how much the var­i­ous pseudo-theo-power-broker plu­to­crats are won­der­ing about what it will take to keep the lunacy under wraps after their theoc­racy takes con­trol. Take the Koch broth­ers. Surely they real­ize that, should the theo­cratic plu­to­crats ever suc­cess­fully lead a “grass roots” “small gov­ern­ment” revolt that turns soci­ety into a Handmaid’s Tale, the Koch broth­ers are one of the default tar­gets for the next rev­o­lu­tion after the Con-Con agenda trashes soci­ety. What on earth is going stop the “base” from revolt­ing against the new theo-plutocrats? It’s not like there isn’t plenty of ‘torches and pitch­forks’ sen­ti­ment amongst the Con-Con base directed towards the GOP elites too.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 14, 2014, 3:51 pm
  2. Tele­ven­gal­ist linked to Mus­lim Broth­er­hood fronts–

    Accord­ing to files com­piled by the Fed­eral Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion, the founder of the world’s largest Chris­t­ian tele­vi­sion net­work financed his endeavor with the assis­tance of numer­ous inter­na­tional crim­i­nal organizations.

    Doc­u­ments obtained by Muck­Rock show that the FBI was inves­ti­gat­ing Trin­ity Broad­cast­ing Net­work and its founder, Paul Crouch, for being in com­mu­ni­ca­tion with the infa­mous Bronx mafia fig­ure, Vin­cent Gigante, with regards to a “nar­cotics trans­fer of funds,” which is how the FBI clas­si­fies money-laundering.

    In another doc­u­ment, Crouch is listed along­side Rev­erend Earl Paulk and Oral Roberts as “anti-Semitic white suprema­cists [who] were sup­pos­edly receiv­ing funds from the [Pales­tin­ian Lib­er­a­tion Orga­ni­za­tion] to ‘run guns’” via an “Islamic Edu­ca­tion Cen­ter” in Bal­ti­more, Mary­land. Both of these inves­ti­ga­tions were tagged as relat­ing to “finan­cial flow” involv­ing narcotics.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/27/fbi-files-link-christian-tvs-paul-crouch-to-italian-mob-palestinian-gun-trafficking/

    Posted by Dada | August 27, 2014, 8:53 am
  3. Dear Sir,
    I would like to know if the above men­tioned pic, show­ing Man­fred Zapp, was taken from Jeff Sharlet’s book. I’m inves­ti­gat­ing Zapps car­rier in South Africa and I did not find any pics there.
    Thanks so much for your atten­tion.
    Regards, Michael

    Posted by Michael | February 23, 2015, 1:19 am
  4. Here’s a great overview of how the Mil­i­tary Indus­trial Com­plex found God. Or, rather, how the same folks that brought us fun stuff like the Mil­i­tary Indus­trial Com­plex rede­fined God in their own image:

    The New York Times
    Sun­day Review
    A Chris­t­ian Nation? Since When?

    By KEVIN M. KRUSE
    MARCH 14, 2015

    AMERICA may be a nation of believ­ers, but when it comes to this country’s iden­tity as a “Chris­t­ian nation,” our beliefs are all over the map.

    Just a few weeks ago, Pub­lic Pol­icy Polling reported that 57 per­cent of Repub­li­cans favored offi­cially mak­ing the United States a Chris­t­ian nation. But in 2007, a sur­vey by the First Amend­ment Cen­ter showed that 55 per­cent of Amer­i­cans believed it already was one.

    The con­fu­sion is under­stand­able. For all our talk about sep­a­ra­tion of church and state, reli­gious lan­guage has been writ­ten into our polit­i­cal cul­ture in count­less ways. It is inscribed in our pledge of patri­o­tism, marked on our money, carved into the walls of our courts and our Capi­tol. Per­haps because it is every­where, we assume it has been from the beginning.

    But the found­ing fathers didn’t cre­ate the cer­e­monies and slo­gans that come to mind when we con­sider whether this is a Chris­t­ian nation. Our grand­fa­thers did.

    Back in the 1930s, busi­ness lead­ers found them­selves on the defen­sive. Their pub­lic pres­tige had plum­meted with the Great Crash; their pri­vate busi­nesses were under attack by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal from above and labor from below. To regain the upper hand, cor­po­rate lead­ers fought back on all fronts. They waged a fig­u­ra­tive war in state­houses and, occa­sion­ally, a lit­eral one in the streets; their cam­paigns extended from courts of law to the court of pub­lic opin­ion. But noth­ing worked par­tic­u­larly well until they began an inspired pub­licr rela­tions offen­sive that cast cap­i­tal­ism as the hand­maiden of Christianity.

    The two had been described as soul mates before, but in this cam­paign they were wed­ded in pointed oppo­si­tion to the “creep­ing social­ism” of the New Deal. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment had never really fac­tored into Amer­i­cans’ think­ing about the rela­tion­ship between faith and free enter­prise, mostly because it had never loomed that large over busi­ness inter­ests. But now it cast a long and omi­nous shadow.

    Accord­ingly, through­out the 1930s and ’40s, cor­po­rate lead­ers mar­keted a new ide­ol­ogy that com­bined ele­ments of Chris­tian­ity with an anti-federal lib­er­tar­i­an­ism. Pow­er­ful busi­ness lob­bies like the United States Cham­ber of Com­merce and the National Asso­ci­a­tion of Man­u­fac­tur­ers led the way, pro­mot­ing this ideology’s appeal in con­fer­ences and P.R. cam­paigns. Gen­er­ous fund­ing came from promi­nent busi­ness­men, from house­hold names like Har­vey Fire­stone, Con­rad Hilton, E. F. Hut­ton, Fred May­tag and Henry R. Luce to lesser-known lead­ers at U.S. Steel, Gen­eral Motors and DuPont.

    In a shrewd deci­sion, these exec­u­tives made cler­gy­men their spokes­men. As Sun Oil’s J. Howard Pew noted, polls proved that min­is­ters could mold pub­lic opin­ion more than any other pro­fes­sion. And so these busi­ness­men worked to recruit clergy through pri­vate meet­ings and pub­lic appeals. Many answered the call, but three deserve spe­cial attention.

    The Rev. James W. Fifield — known as “the 13th Apos­tle of Big Busi­ness” and “Saint Paul of the Pros­per­ous” — emerged as an early evan­ge­list for the cause. Preach­ing to pews of mil­lion­aires at the elite First Con­gre­ga­tional Church in Los Ange­les, Mr. Fifield said read­ing the Bible was “like eat­ing fish — we take the bones out to enjoy the meat. All parts are not of equal value.” He dis­missed New Tes­ta­ment warn­ings about the cor­rupt­ing nature of wealth. Instead, he paired Chris­tian­ity and cap­i­tal­ism against the New Deal’s “pagan statism.”

    Through his national orga­ni­za­tion, Spir­i­tual Mobi­liza­tion, founded in 1935, Mr. Fifield pro­moted “free­dom under God.” By the late 1940s, his group was spread­ing the gospel of faith and free enter­prise in a mass-circulated monthly mag­a­zine and a weekly radio pro­gram that even­tu­ally aired on more than 800 sta­tions nation­wide. It even encour­aged min­is­ters to preach ser­mons on its themes in com­pe­ti­tions for cash prizes. Lib­er­als howled at the group’s con­fla­tion of God and greed; in 1948, the rad­i­cal jour­nal­ist Carey McWilliams denounced it in a with­er­ing exposé. But Mr. Fifield exploited such crit­i­cism to raise more funds and redou­ble his efforts.

    Mean­while, the Rev. Abra­ham Vereide advanced the Chris­t­ian lib­er­tar­ian cause with a national net­work of prayer groups. After min­is­ter­ing to indus­tri­al­ists fac­ing huge labor strikes in Seat­tle and San Fran­cisco in the mid-1930s, Mr. Vereide began build­ing prayer break­fast groups in cities across Amer­ica to bring busi­ness and polit­i­cal elites together in com­mon cause. “The big men and the real lead­ers in New York and Chicago,” he wrote his wife, “look up to me in an embar­rass­ing way.” In Man­hat­tan alone, James Cash Pen­ney, I.B.M.’s Thomas Wat­son, Nor­man Vin­cent Peale and Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia all sought audi­ences with him.

    In 1942, Mr. Vereide’s influ­ence spread to Wash­ing­ton. He per­suaded the House and Sen­ate to start weekly prayer meet­ings “in order that we might be a God-directed and God-controlled nation.” Mr. Vereide opened head­quar­ters in Wash­ing­ton — “God’s Embassy,” he called it — and became a pow­er­ful force in its pre­vi­ously sec­u­lar insti­tu­tions. Among other activ­i­ties, he held “ded­i­ca­tion cer­e­monies” for sev­eral jus­tices of the Supreme Court. “No coun­try or civ­i­liza­tion can last,” Jus­tice Tom C. Clark announced at his 1949 con­se­cra­tion, “unless it is founded on Chris­t­ian values.”

    The most impor­tant cler­gy­man for Chris­t­ian lib­er­tar­i­an­ism, though, was the Rev. Billy Gra­ham. In his ini­tial min­istry, in the early 1950s, Mr. Gra­ham sup­ported cor­po­rate inter­ests so zeal­ously that a Lon­don paper called him “the Big Busi­ness evan­ge­list.” The Gar­den of Eden, he informed revival atten­dees, was a par­adise with “no union dues, no labor lead­ers, no snakes, no dis­ease.” In the same spirit, he denounced all “gov­ern­ment restric­tions” in eco­nomic affairs, which he invari­ably attacked as “socialism.”

    In 1952, Mr. Gra­ham went to Wash­ing­ton and made Con­gress his con­gre­ga­tion. He recruited rep­re­sen­ta­tives to serve as ush­ers at packed revival meet­ings and staged the first for­mal reli­gious ser­vice held on the Capi­tol steps. That year, at his urg­ing, Con­gress estab­lished an annual National Day of Prayer. “If I would run for pres­i­dent of the United States today on a plat­form of call­ing peo­ple back to God, back to Christ, back to the Bible,” he pre­dicted, “I’d be elected.”

    Dwight D. Eisen­hower ful­filled that pre­dic­tion. With Mr. Gra­ham offer­ing Scrip­ture for Ike’s speeches, the Repub­li­can nom­i­nee cam­paigned in what he called a “great cru­sade for free­dom.” His mil­i­tary record made the gen­eral a for­mi­da­ble can­di­date, but on the trail he empha­sized spir­i­tual issues over worldly con­cerns. As the jour­nal­ist John Tem­ple Graves observed: “Amer­ica isn’t just a land of the free in Eisenhower’s con­cep­tion. It is a land of free­dom under God.” Elected in a land­slide, Eisen­hower told Mr. Gra­ham that he had a man­date for a “spir­i­tual renewal.”

    Although Eisen­hower relied on Chris­t­ian lib­er­tar­ian groups in the cam­paign, he parted ways with their agenda once elected. The movement’s cor­po­rate spon­sors had seen reli­gious rhetoric as a way to dis­man­tle the New Deal state. But the newly elected pres­i­dent thought that a fool’s errand. “Should any polit­i­cal party attempt to abol­ish Social Secu­rity, unem­ploy­ment insur­ance, and elim­i­nate labor laws and farm pro­grams,” he noted pri­vately, “you would not hear of that party again in our polit­i­cal his­tory.” Unlike those who held pub­lic spir­i­tu­al­ity as a means to an end, Eisen­hower embraced it as an end unto itself.

    ...

    Well, it sounds like the Mil­i­tary Indus­trial Com­plex isn’t the only thing Eisen­hower should have warned us about, although he may have gen­uinely believed that “should any polit­i­cal party attempt to abol­ish Social Secu­rity, unem­ploy­ment insur­ance, and elim­i­nate labor laws and farm programs,...you would not hear of that party again in our polit­i­cal his­tory,” so maybe the mod­ern day GOP and its ongo­ing attempt to elim­i­nate the New Deal is some­thing he just couldn’t imag­ine. After all, who could imag­ine that a move­ment of cor­po­ratist Chris­t­ian min­is­ters that appar­ently “encour­aged min­is­ters to preach ser­mons on its themes in com­pe­ti­tions for cash prizes” would actu­ally suc­ceed in trans­form­ing society?!

    Then again, given the scope of this “Chris­t­ian lib­er­tar­ian” move­ment in the ‘50s and the fact that the very same groups behind the Mil­i­tary Indus­trial Com­plex Eisen­hower warned us about were also financ­ing sort of hor­ri­ble Christian/Mammon hybrid, per­haps the threat of this move­ment should have been clear even back then. 17,000 “min­is­ter rep­re­sen­ta­tives” is one hell of a “Com­plex” too:

    NPR
    How ‘One Nation’ Didn’t Become ‘Under God’ Until The ‘50s Reli­gious Revival
    MARCH 30, 2015 3:29 PM ET

    The words “under God” in the Pledge of Alle­giance and the phrase “In God we trust” on the back of a dol­lar bill haven’t been there as long as most Amer­i­cans might think. Those ref­er­ences were inserted in the 1950s dur­ing the Eisen­hower admin­is­tra­tion, the same decade that the National Prayer Break­fast was launched, accord­ing to writer Kevin Kruse. His new book is One Nation Under God.

    In the orig­i­nal Pledge of Alle­giance, Fran­cis Bel­lamy made no men­tion of God, Kruse says. Bel­lamy was Chris­t­ian social­ist, a Bap­tist who believed in the sep­a­ra­tion of church and state.

    “As this new reli­gious revival is sweep­ing the coun­try and tak­ing on new polit­i­cal tones, the phrase ‘one nation under God’ seizes the national imag­i­na­tion,” Kruse tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross. “It starts with a pro­posal by the Knights of Colum­bus, the Catholic lay orga­ni­za­tion, to add the phrase ‘under God’ to the Pledge of Alle­giance. Their ini­tial cam­paign doesn’t go any­where but once Eisenhower’s own pas­tor endorses it ... it catches fire.”

    ...

    “Accord­ing to the con­ven­tional nar­ra­tive, the Soviet Union dis­cov­ered the bomb and the United States redis­cov­ered God,” Kruse says. “In order to push back against the athe­is­tic com­mu­nism of the Soviet Union, Amer­i­cans re-embraced a reli­gious iden­tity. That plays a small role here, but ... there’s actu­ally a longer arc. That Cold War con­sen­sus actu­ally helps to paper over a cou­ple decades of inter­nal polit­i­cal strug­gles in the United States. If you look at the archi­tects of this lan­guage ... the state power that they’re wor­ried most about is not the Soviet regime in Moscow, but rather the New Deal and Fair Deal admin­is­tra­tions in Wash­ing­ton, D.C.

    Inter­view Highlights

    On how cor­po­ra­tions hired min­is­ters to spread “free enterprise”

    The New Deal had passed a large num­ber of mea­sures that were reg­u­lat­ing busi­ness in some ways for the first time, and it [had] empow­ered labor unions and given them a voice in the affairs of busi­ness. Cor­po­rate lead­ers resented both of these moves and so they launched a mas­sive cam­paign of pub­lic rela­tions designed to sell the val­ues of free enter­prise. The prob­lem was that their naked appeals to the mer­its of cap­i­tal­ism were largely dis­missed by the public.

    The most famous of these orga­ni­za­tions was called The Amer­i­can Lib­erty League and it was heav­ily financed by lead­ers at DuPont, Gen­eral Motors and other cor­po­ra­tions. The prob­lem was that it seemed like very obvi­ous cor­po­rate propaganda. As Jim Far­ley, the head of the Demo­c­ra­tic Party at the time, said: “They ought to call it The Amer­i­can Cel­lo­phane League, because No. 1: It’s a DuPont prod­uct, and No. 2: You can see right through it.”

    So when they real­ized that mak­ing this direct case for free enter­prise was inef­fec­tive, they decided to find another way to do it. They decided to out­source the job. As they noted in their pri­vate cor­re­spon­dence, min­is­ters were the most trusted men in Amer­ica at the time, so who bet­ter to make the case to the Amer­i­can peo­ple than ministers?

    On the mes­sage the min­is­ters conveyed

    They use these min­is­ters to make the case that Chris­tian­ity and cap­i­tal­ism were soul mates. This case had been made before, but in the con­text of the New Deal it takes on a sharp new polit­i­cal mean­ing. Essen­tially they argue that Chris­tian­ity and cap­i­tal­ism are both sys­tems in which indi­vid­u­als rise and fall accord­ing to their own mer­its. So in Chris­tian­ity, if you’re good you go to heaven, if you’re bad you go to hell. In cap­i­tal­ism if you’re good you make a profit and you suc­ceed, if you’re bad you fail.

    The New Deal, they argue, vio­lates this nat­ural order. In fact, they argue that the New Deal and the reg­u­la­tory state vio­late the Ten Com­mand­ments. It makes a false idol of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment and encour­ages Amer­i­cans to wor­ship it rather than the Almighty. It encour­ages Amer­i­cans to covet what the wealthy have; it encour­ages them to steal from the wealthy in the forms of tax­a­tion; and, most impor­tantly, it bears false wit­ness against the wealthy by telling lies about them. So they argue that the New Deal is not a man­i­fes­ta­tion of God’s will, but rather, a form of pagan stateism and is inher­ently sinful.

    On the Rev. James Fifield

    He takes over the pas­torate at the First Con­gre­ga­tional Church in Los Ange­les, an elite church, lit­er­ally min­is­ter­ing to mil­lion­aires in his pews. It’s got some of the town’s most wealthy cit­i­zens — the mayor attends ser­vice there, [Hol­ly­wood film­maker] Cecil B. DeMille. He tells these mil­lion­aires what they want to hear, which is that their worldly suc­cess is a sign of heav­enly bless­ing. He has a very loose approach to the Bible. He says that read­ing the Bible should be like eat­ing fish: We take out the bones to enjoy the meat; all parts are not of equal value. Accord­ingly, he dis­re­garded Christ’s many injunc­tions about the dan­gers of wealth, and instead preached a phi­los­o­phy that wed­ded cap­i­tal­ism to Christianity.

    On Fifield’s “spir­i­tual mobilization”

    “Spir­i­tual mobi­liza­tion” is his effort to recruit other min­is­ters to the cause. So he is serv­ing, in many ways, as a front­man for a num­ber of cor­po­rate lead­ers. His main spon­sors are Sun Oil Pres­i­dent J. Howard Pew, Alfred Sloan of Gen­eral Motors, the heads of the U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce, the National Asso­ci­a­tion of Man­u­fac­tur­ers, they all heav­ily fund this orga­ni­za­tion. But what Fifield sets out to do is recruit other min­is­ters to his cause. Within the span of just a decade’s time, he has about 17,000 so-called min­is­ter rep­re­sen­ta­tives who belong to the orga­ni­za­tion who are lit­er­ally preach­ing ser­mons on its Chris­t­ian lib­er­tar­ian mes­sage to their con­gre­ga­tions, who are com­pet­ing in ser­mon contest[s] for cash prizes and they’re doing all they can in their local com­mu­ni­ties to spread this mes­sage that the New Deal is essen­tially evil, it’s a man­i­fes­ta­tion of creep­ing social­ism that is rot­ting away the coun­try from within. Instead they need to rally around busi­ness lead­ers and make com­mon cause with them to defend what they call “the Amer­i­can way of life.”

    ...

    Yep:

    Within the span of just a decade’s time, he has about 17,000 so-called min­is­ter rep­re­sen­ta­tives who belong to the orga­ni­za­tion who are lit­er­ally preach­ing ser­mons on its Chris­t­ian lib­er­tar­ian mes­sage to their con­gre­ga­tions, who are com­pet­ing in ser­mon contest[s] for cash prizes and they’re doing all they can in their local com­mu­ni­ties to spread this mes­sage that the New Deal is essen­tially evil, it’s a man­i­fes­ta­tion of creep­ing social­ism that is rot­ting away the coun­try from within.

    So that was a hor­ri­bly review of a par­tic­u­larly impor­tant chap­ter of 20th cen­tury his­tory that raises num­ber of ques­tions. But it’s espe­cially depress­ing since the most sig­nif­i­cant ques­tion raises by this is what’s changed?

    Well, the cor­po­ratists are just as awful as before but decades of the main­stream­ing of this stuff has appar­ently given their polit­i­cal pup­pets license to not even bother hid­ing their theo­cratic mad­ness. So that’s changed.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 3, 2015, 6:38 pm

Post a comment