THE GREAT LIE

ISI BOOKS

Contents

Chapter One

Waldemar Gurian

We observe today an astonishing spectacle. Just as during the worst period of the French Revolution, Christianity, and particularly the Catholic Church, is under systematic attack in wide parts of the world, in the Soviet Union, in its European satellites, and in Red China. These countries are under control Of groups which profess an atheistic doctrine. The official doctrine of the Soviet world expresses the belief that religion will disappear; it permits the application of tactics which strangulate Church life slowly, but successfully. Leading members of the hierarchy have been arrested and sentenced; schools and monasteries have been closed down; religious orders disbanded; missionary work of centuries has been destroyed. All this is accomplished by systematic and carefully planned campaigns. Every means of deception is used. In profoundly Catholic countries like Poland, caution prevails; in others brutal terror is applied. And all measures against Church life are presented, despite the clear atheism of the official doctrine, as measures against reactionaries and political counter-revolutionaries; churchmen are accused of being American agents and allies of Imperialism and Capitalism.

But it is not only the Communists who have persecuted the Church in our time; the anti-Communist Nazi regime tried also to destroy the Church, though this attack was made in the name of another doctrine, a racial philosophy. What both systems, Communism and Nazism, have in common is their totalitarian character. This common totalitarianism of course does not mean that they must always be friendly to each other; on the contrary, both fought against each other, accusing each other of being barbaric, inhuman, sadistic.

In this article I will not try to present the history of the antireligious policies of the two totalitarian systems of our time. I will try to show the basis of these policies, the spirit which makes them develop an absolute hostility against Christ and His Church.

The totalitarian movements which have arisen since World War I are fundamentally religious movements. They aim not at changes of political and social institutions, but at the reshaping of the nature of man and society. They claim to have the true and obligatory knowledge about life and its aims. They emphasize that they are based on doctrines which describe and determine totally and completely the existence and activities of men and society. It does not matter if these doctrines are presented as the exclusively correct expression of a scientific knowledge of society and the laws according to which history develops—as the Marxist Bolshevik variety of totalitarianism does—or if they pretend to justify the domination of the master race and express the myth destined to prevail in the twentieth century as the National Socialist variety asserts. The pretense of having the true doctrine gives to the totalitarian movements their basic character. They are intolerant. They aim at the extirpation of all other doctrines and philosophies. They cannot tolerate any limitation of their claims and their power. Totalitarian movements cannot conceive of realms of life outside and beyond their control; they cannot accept the fact that there are other doctrines or institutions with the right to remain independent, having a dignity and a validity of their own. That they do accept for a time, as long as power considerations demand it, the existence of other groups and other doctrines does not mean that they abandon their aim of absolute domination, of making all other doctrines disappear.

It is a fatal misunderstanding of totalitarian movements to confuse and identify them with authoritarian political regimes. True, authoritarian regimes do not know and accept real democratic institutions and processes, for example, periodical elections based upon universal suffrage which determine the composition of government; they reject constitutional limitations which do not depend upon decisions of the ruler. But they accept (or at least do not reject) an objective traditional social order which is independent of the ruler and the ruling group. Authoritarian regimes do not claim to bring a new faith, an all-embracing doctrine determining the whole of life; though they are nondemocratic, opposed to representative government based on universal suffrage, rejecting parties and the political influence of public opinion which expresses itself in free, not controlled, discussions.

The authoritarian regimes which in their traditional monarchic form became outmoded after the French Revolution, reappear today as reactions against the dissolution of unifying forces and institutions among nations. Nations in our time are often threatened by anarchy, by the deadly strife of parties which put their particular interests above the common good; for the parties have developed into instruments of the egoistic interests of their members or leaders who have forgotten their obligation towards the community as a whole. Authoritarian regimes of today may try, as the absolute monarchies of the Enlightenment did, to control all institutions—including the Church—claiming that the governments know best what the welfare of the community requires. They are surely antidemocratic, rejecting the participation of the people by national suffrage in government; they believe in a system of government exercised from above by a wise man or by a ruling elite. But they are not based upon the belief that the political regime must regulate the whole of life, that everything, including science and cultural activities, is subordinate to the movement which shapes the public power, that the doctrine of this movement is the key to the understanding of history and nature of society as well as of the destiny of man. The authoritarian regimes do not deny the existence of an objective order which is beyond the reach of political power, and they do not claim that political power determines what is the objective order and the truth. The authoritarian regimes express political views not shared by those who accept democracy and who believe that policies ought to be influenced by public opinion and its discussions. But they are not based upon political religions; their political power, unlike totalitarian power, does not determine the whole life of men and society.

Today, of course, it is not always easy to distinguish between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. The Fascist regime in Mussolini's Italy rose with totalitarian pretenses; Mussolini himself wrote an article about the Fascist doctrine. But I agree fully with Hannah Arendt, who in her study The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1951) cited Nazism and Bolshevism as the prototypes of totalitarianism. For Mussolini employed claims about a particular Fascist doctrine for propaganda purposes in order to justify his superiority over the liberal-parliamentary regime of the past. The Fascist doctrine did not prevent him—despite all clashes and conflicts from coming to terms with the Church. He accepted—true, for pragmatic reasons—the Catholic tradition prevailing in Italy. His rule had an authoritarian character despite totalitarian trimmings; he emphasized—as authoritarians are inclined to do—the power of the state, and therefore the right of the state to control all life and all institutions, including the Church. The Fascist attitude towards the Church brought about a renewal of the traditional conflicts between the Church and a strong State which would try to put the Church under its control, denying her independence in public life. Fascism tried, for example, to control Catholic Action; this attempt caused Plus XI to write the encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno. But despite all rhetorical boasts against which the Church took a stand Italian Fascism did not try seriously to replace the faith of the Church by a new religion, a political religion making the totalitarian movement the single force dominating all realms of life and giving true meaning to society and men.

What has been said about Italian Fascism must be said too about Franco's Spain. Franco's regime is authoritarian, but not totalitarian. It uses fewer totalitarian trimmings than Mussolini did—for it appeals more directly and intensely to Spanish traditions. It opposes liberalism and modern democracy in the name of those traditions, and it tries to emphasize the power of the state, but it does not assert the mission of a movement destined to bring a new faith and to shape the whole of life correspondingly.

The difficulty in making clear the distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes is increased by the tendencies of totalitarian movements to utilize both traditional ideas and conservative-minded groups to bring themselves and their policies into power. A particularly striking example of this tendency was provided by Hitler and his National-Socialism. One of his most efficient propaganda slogans was the claim that he alone was able to crush Communism—as whose allies liberals and democrats were denounced—and that, therefore, he would preserve and rescue traditional values and religion. He was anti-Communist; so his propaganda tried to spread the wrong impression that his movement was pro-Christian. It was overlooked by his conservative admirers that one can fight one error not only in the name of truth, but in the name of other errors. Not only did the party program mention "positive Christianity," but the first proclamation of Hitler after his appointment as chancellor mentioned protection of religion. Likewise, the Bolsheviks, who began as the fiercest opponents and destroyers of all traditional institutions and beliefs and as indefatigable workers for an international atheistic classless society, have learned to press traditional forces into their service. Stalin's Soviet Union proclaims today that its policies realize Russian national aspirations; and the state Church of the Tsarist past is again utilized as an instrument of the government and its propaganda. Therefore, the strong state whose rulers are not dependent upon elections, parties, and a free public opinion, appears as characteristic of totalitarian regimes; their claim to have an all-embracing doctrine seems to be only an instrument for the erection of a political system where the state concentrates in its hands the maximum of power.

But I think this attempt to interpret totalitarianism only as a particularly ruthless form of authoritarianism and to explain away the importance of the totalitarian doctrine prevents real understanding of the political religions of the twentieth century. These political religions, the various kinds of totalitarianism, aim not only at the establishment of a strong state, but at the complete transformation and control of men and society. The totalitarian state which intervenes in all realms of life is not the end but merely an instrument of the totalitarian movement. The decisive feature of this movement is the acceptance of a doctrine which justifies absolute domination by those who have accepted it—the leaders and members of the totalitarian party. This doctrine does not exclude practical adaptations. The masses are not told the consequences of the doctrine; they must be seduced and tamed by giving the impression (especially before power is achieved) that their needs and demands will be satisfied. The Bolsheviks said in 1917 that they were for peace—the masses, the Russian soldiers and peasants did not understand that they were really only for the ending of the imperialist wars, for the transformation of these wars into revolutionary wars. They told the peasants that all landed estates would be turned over to them. The peasants did not realize that all land, including their own, would be finally put under the control of the state. The Nazis told the middle-class businessmen that they would abolish department stores, and end an economic order dominated by the easy gains of interest-takers. The nature of the totalitarian doctrines was but slowly realized. Hitler introduced even the measures against the Jews only step by step. He began with the Concordat in order to deceive the Catholics about his Church policies. The final status promised by the totalitarian doctrine can even become a myth whose realization is beyond human control. Stalin has extended the transitional period during which a strong political power would be necessary; therefore, he has delayed the withering away of the state as an instrument of coercion to the uncontrollable and unpredictable far-distant future.

What matters is not the content of totalitarian doctrine; its function of establishing total domination by the totalitarian leaders and elites is decisive—to use an expression of Hannah Arendt. Totalitarian doctrine justifies a continuous drive for more and more power as well as the dynamism and expansionism without end characteristic of totalitarian regimes; totalitarian doctrine makes totalitarian rulers deal with men and human groups as pure material; for what matters are not human beings and their reality, but the constant proof presented again and again that the doctrine is right, for it determines reality by power exercised in its name; this power that has no limits it is expanded and demonstrated again and again—becomes an end in itself, for it is proved to be meaningful because it corresponds to the doctrine and therefore justifies the actions of those who realize and interpret it.

Men and groups are not only to obey and to avoid any public opposition as in authoritarian regimes—but they are forced to be active and enthusiastic supporters. They are forced in such a way that they do not appear to be forced. They are liquidated, thrown away as if they were unnecessary and useless parts of a machine—according to the whims of the rulers, who show by this behavior their limitless, all-embracing power. The totalitarian masters shape the world according to their doctrine; any reality not corresponding to the doctrine is wrong, and its existence is rejected if the doctrine demands it. Hannah Arendt illustrates this attitude by mentioning a story which denies that there are other subways besides those of Moscow, for to admit of other subways would be to oppose Soviet propaganda whose claims the inhabitants of the Soviet Union must accept as reality. The policy of the iron curtain is a consequence of the totalitarian attempt to make the totalitarian world appear as the real world. The authoritarian regime establishes a form of political rule; the totalitarian regime tries to create an artificial world and impose it as reality. This world has to correspond to the demands of the totalitarian doctrine as interpreted by the rulers so that their power is constantly maintained and demonstrated by expansions. A vicious circle characterizes totalitarian rule: the doctrine justifies the absolute domination by such a group as the party—the instrument for the realization of Socialism and Communism or the racial elite—and the doctrine is proved to be true by the successful absolute domination consisting not only in the establishment of the totalitarian state, but in the imposition of an artificial world. God's order is replaced by a man-made order, the artificial order required by the doctrine and created by the power exercised in its name.

Therefore, the conflict between the Church and the totalitarian regimes goes much deeper than the conflicts between the Church and the authoritarian regimes. The latter are conflicts caused by attempts of the secular power to put the spiritual power with its public functions under its control, to determine, for example, appointments of bishops, to control all educational activities of the Church, to restrict the formation of Catholic associations, to supervise or to forbid religious orders, to make the publication of papal and episcopal pronouncements dependent upon permission by state authorities (the so-called placet). The totalitarian regimes take over all methods of the authoritarian state to control and restrict Church activities; they do not admit, of course, any obligation to regard the Church as modern liberal-democratic regimes do as an association of citizens in whose internal life the government does not interfere. For all associations ought to be under control of the totalitarian movement; their "coordination" (Gleichschaltung) is carried out as one of the most important policies of the totalitarian regime, and only on account of power politics and propagandist considerations is the Church provisionally exempted from this coordination—Hitler concluded a Concordat not actually to comply with its terms, but to avoid an immediate open conflict with Catholics and to confuse them. The land and other property of the Catholic Church in Poland are not confiscated in order to keep the Catholic believers quiet.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from THE GREAT LIE Copyright © 2011 by Introduction and footnotes by F. Flagg Taylor IV. Excerpted by permission of ISI BOOKS. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.