Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview

by Gene Edward Veith Jr.

This new book in the Concordia Scholarship Today Series examines how fascist views permeate modern philosophy, art, movies, and eugenics--decades after the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II. Dealing with a variety of fascist thought--from the intellectuals to the skinheads--Veith shows how the fascist's focus on self and human will is in direct opposition to the Christian's faith in a righteous God. (Concordia Publishing House)

Genres: History, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Political Science, School, Christian, Politics

188 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 1993

About the author

Gene Edward Veith Jr., is the Culture Editor of WORLD MAGAZINE. He was formerly Professor of English at Concordia University Wisconsin, where he has also served as Dean of the School of Arts & Sciences. He is the author of numerous books, including Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals, and God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life.

Postmodern Times received a Christianity Today Book Award as one of the top 25 religious books of 1994. He was named Concordia's Adult Learning Teacher of the Year in 1993 and received the Faculty Laureate Award as outstanding faculty member in 1994. He was a Salvatori Fellow with the Heritage Foundation in 1994-1995 and is a Senior Fellow with the Capital Research Center. He was given the layman’s 2002 Robert D. Preus Award by the Association of Confessional Lutherans as “Confessional Lutheran of the Year.”

Dr. Veith was born in Oklahoma in 1951. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma in 1973 and received a Ph.D. in English from the University of Kansas in 1979. He has taught at Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College and was a Visiting Professor at Wheaton College in Illinois. He was also a Visiting Lecturer at the Estonian Institute of Humanities in Tallinn, Estonia. He and his wife Jackquelyn have three grown children and live in Cedarburg, Wisconsin.

Reviews

[Paul Gosselin · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author's main thesis is that fascism is, beyond it’s crudest symbols (the Gestapo, it’s fanatical soldiers - the SS, the swastika and Hitler himself), a little known ideology. Thus the media and academia view of fascism is largely a caricature...
Veith forces us to examine what fascism is, that is as a system of beliefs and ideas. Even in academia, except for a few specialists, what beliefs were involved in fascism has been completely forgotten. Veith does an effective job of exposing the ideological and philosophical currents that fed fascism. It must be understood that Nazism was not just a popular movement, but was very well received in German academic and intellectual circles and among doctors. In the 1930s, most Western nations had fascist movements. For example, renowned Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan wrote admiringly about Italian fascist Benito Mussolini’s social initiatives in an article “Is fascism the answer?" (Written for the Manitoban, student newspaper of the University of Manitoba. Published December 1, 1933). Even Quebec had its own Fuehrer wanna-be in the 1930s, Adrien Arcand. For my part, I draw the conclusion that the meme that "Hitler was a monster" is very useful meme intended to derail any serious analysis of fascism as a worldview. For if such an analysis were made, then one could draw the same conclusion as Veith, namely that much of the fascist worldview is alive and well in 2022, with a marketing make-over perhaps, but alive and well. The resurgence of anti-Semitism (also repackaged as anti-Zionism...) among postmodern elites fits VERY well with the fascism of the 1930s...
While one can see many parallels between the fascism of the 1930s and the narrative pumped out by Davos puppets in 2022, there is a marked difference that Veith fails to point out (he was writing in 1993 after all...). The fascists of the 1930s were staunch nationalists, whereas the postmodern elites and all the Davos puppets currently in power in the West have nothing but contempt for any nationalist or popular mouvements. This explains the deluge of postmodernist contempt for 'Make America Great Again', for Brexit and for the French “gilet jaunes” (or Justin Trudeau's contempt for Canadian truckers). This is a significant pattern...
But this contempt of the Davos puppets for nationalism strikes me as even more sinister than the zealous nationalism of the fascists of the 1930s because it is rooted in an increasingly obvious desire to overthrow nations to erect a GLOBAL power. Power over one nation is not enough for them... They are working for a return to the Tower of Babel... Total, ABSOLUTE power is what they are after.

I highly recommend this book...

Full review here...

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very good book on the rise of German Fascism. I was expecting (hoping) that it would be more focused on fascism as it is alive today. The history and defining of fascism was what I found most helpful. I always assumed it was based on hyper-nationalism but found that it is more based on a rejection of transcendence with pagan roots, seeds of environmentalism and grounded in existentialism. I suppose one smarter than myself can make the connection from the environment of the early 20th century that gave rise to fascism and the intellectual climate of today. I'm not going to lie, I was hoping Veith was going to do that for me.

Another interesting part of the story is the development of the phrase "will to power." Power seems to be a major theme of fascist thought and what better basis for it than the autonomous will of man. This of course comes from the rejection of transcendent truth and law (something the Nazis blamed Jewish thought and religion for) and is easily identifiable with Heidegger's existentialism.

Overall a good read, just not what I was expecting.

[… · Rating 2 out of 5]

liquidate it

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

This has to be one of the most heavily underlined/starred books I've ever had, thank goodness I had a physical copy and could mark it up. This book was incredibly helpful in terms of defining fascism (normally it's just used as an insult), since I couldn't have given you an actual definition of the term (even the Antifa book I read didn't define it in any helpful way). I'm sure that many Marxists would balk at the way he defined it, because they see their own religion-- I mean political ideology as the exact opposite of fascism. This is similar to how science-minded folks respond when you call their devotion to science its own form of religion. The author of this book pointed out how Fascism is its own sort of religion, and he thoroughly demonstrated how it sprung from romanticism, darwinism, and existentialism. He also very convincingly showed how anti-christian it was (explicitly and implicitly). In fact, I really really appreciated how the theological lens was built into this book, because normally I read secular works and have to translate it into a theological context myself.

Fascism is correct in diagnosing the problem, as is Marxism: us Moderns are Alienated. Marxists, however, say that we are alienated economically, and Fascists say that we are alienated by abstraction and other things Jewish. Veith helpfully pointed out that it was not only a racial hatred that the Nazis had, but an ideological hatred of the Jews. This, by extension, included all Confessional churches (i.e. conservative, non-pushover churches), and any transcendent morality. Hitler discussed in his letters how he would deal with the "church problem" (analagous to the Jewish Problem) after the war.

The Fascists related very deeply with the Romantics in terms of this alienation and how to resolve it. I've never related to the Romantics because they thought that somehow art could replace religion. This Romanticism is also materialistic, something else I simply cannot jive with, especially in light of the (social) darwinism which caused the materialism. More on that later.

Veith further described Fascism as the Nazis described it, specifically NAtional ZI... ...SOcialism haha. This is in contradistinction with the "Internationale", the international socialist, the communist. Commies often balk at this, since in their mythos (ever since the stalinist era), they have figured Fascists as their polar opposites, despite both being:

- Totalitarian
- Materialistic
- Economic
- Anti-Transcendent
- Utilitarian
- etc.

Veith points out additionally that many people switched allegiances rather easily, almost as if they weren't on opposite sides of a univariate spectrum, but maybe... were shaped... more like a horseshoe? The interesting thing is that Veith points out that today's "far Leftists" and "Marxists" don't care about the working class, they don't have much, if any class-consciousness, seeing corporations as the enemy, not the middle class. As a quick little aside, the Nazis made an intriguing false dichotomy: Culture vs Civilization. They saw culture as being the true, earthy

The parallels between these two, just like the parallels between postmodern thought (Foucault et al.) and fascism are nuanced by Veith; he isn't claiming that they necessarily are bedfellows or even come from the same intellectual lineage, but that their symptoms (the way they present) are eerily similar. One of the points that I thought was the weakest was his assertion that the Nazis were the first modern environmentalists... I mean I know what biased position he's trying to dog-whistle for, and later in the book he backpedals anyway, so this felt forced and stupid.

What was better argued was the theological and philosophical opposition that fascists and especially the Nazis had to Judaism and Orthodox Christianity (which is essentially Jewish in philosophy). What the Nazis were more more supportive wasn't today's alarmist environmentalism, but was a "return to nature" movement, one which prioritized immanence over the transcendant, the polytheistic over the monotheistic, the pantheistic over the strict judaistic distinction between creator and created. The Nazis were in every respect theologically regressive, and they pointed to the Jews as the source of all problems, preferring their Pagan ethnic religions over Judeo-Christianity. I find it important that the author (and I) use "Judeo-Christian" instead of abrahamic, because we want to exclude the muslim influence. Islam claims to be THE primordial religion, and heavily contradicts both Judaism [Ishmael > Isaac] and Christianity [explicitly anti-trinitarian]. Hitler didn't mind Islam as much as the other two, in part because of Islam's anti-jewish nature. Antisemitism, clunky term that it is, is most prevalent in the middle east today, and we best not forget that. It's a shame this book didn't mention it, as it's easily the place where the most virulent anti-jewish writings continue to flourish, such as the "Protocols".

In a parallel to the Koran, Mein Kampf also carries a horrid contradiction in regards to "tolerance" when it simultaneously blames the Jews and their exclusivistic legacy and also says we need to exclude the Jews and anything they have allegedly touched [this parallels Mohammed's initial irenic outlook shifting later to imperialism once in power].

Perhaps one of the most important legacies of the Jews is their placing of God above their leaders, thus allowing for the first time criticism of the powerful (by reference to a standard higher than the king). This is something that the Nazis conveniently dispensed with.

Another indispensable legacy was individual respect and worth before God, the basis of liberalism, which is utterly at odds with the evolutionary model of history and sociology. It was precisely this respect for the weak, opposition to abortion, euthanasia, etc. which Nietzsche so virulently attacked in The Antichrist, and which the Nazis continued. I think, along with Veith, that Nietzsche would not have been a Nazi (he was too rebellious, wasn't anti-semitic, wasn't a materialist, etc.), but he did kick open the door that the Nazis ran into. Nietzsche's "transvaluation of all values" was catastrophic, and it eventually looks like smoke stacks for humans. The immanent ethics of the Nazis did the opposite of what CHristianity did; the Nazis enslaved people with their animal/tribalistic impulses, while Christianity humanizes people by placing reasonable restrictions upon them.

Christianity, as counter to Nazi ideology as it was, could not be removed wholesale, but the Nazis attempted neutering it beyond recognition. This took place within the (liberal) state church, but the (conservative) confessional congregations aligned themselves against the abhorrent Nazi policies, even helping to plot against Hitler (Bonhoeffer went to the camps for this). The very debates we have in the church today (higher criticism, social interpretations, church vs culture, the family, etc.) are the same ones that the Nazis found they agreed with in the liberal state church. If the bible isn't trustworthy, then that means you can throw out the OT. If you can just interpret the "salvation" talk as metaphorical, you can jettison the transcendent aspects. If the culture is supposed to direct the church, not the church standing its own ground, then why oppose the Nazis? Why have an old-fashioned family when efficiently breeding genetically pure children is a high priority? All of these played straight into their hand, and it's somewhat disturbing. Catholicism apparently made its own underground resistance to Hitler, but the conservative Protestants, with their Sola Scriptura, had an extremely hard time conforming in any way to Hitler and were the leaders of the religious opposition.

Instead of a serious religion with established doctrines, the Nazis favored New Age spirituality, esotericism, and other modern trends in ersatz mystical experiences. Existentialism, as a sort of secular religion, gets hammered quite hard and repeatedly by Veith throughout the book. It all boils down to the immediacy > transcendence and Nietzsche's Antichrist, so I won't belabor the point further. Much fuss is made about heidigger and his impact upon contemporary philosophy, especially because he was an unrepentant Nazi, just like Ezra Pound. I haven't read any Heidigger, but I have read Pound, and I think it's perfectly safe to read him knowing what his ideology was. As a Christian who believes in transcendent reality and values, I run no risk when reading him, just like I ran no risk of becoming a Nazi when reading Mein Kampf or the Turner Diaries. I think Veith, and people like him (my dad) need to have slightly more faith in the interpretive capabilities of readers. Just because you inbibe in media which displays a certain worldview doesn't mean you will take on that worldview. Sometimes I question whether people who are so absolutist about media ingestion are really just weak in their beliefs and require constant reassurance of their position. That's another discussion for another time though.

Foucault is also brought in as well, as some of his thought is similarly Machivellian like Neitzsche's, whether it's the Will or Power or whatever that is most important. Veith importantly points out that the only thing preventing Foucault from being a fascist is his inexplicable bias in favor of the oppressed. Nothing in his worldview could justify it, and if he read more Nietzsche, he might have dropped that last good trait.

When talking of Wills, this book brought to our attention an amazing parallel, namely the Nazi "Triumph of the Will" and Luther's "Bondage of the Will", which are diametrically opposed and are irreconcilable. Disappointingly, not much time is dedicated to Luther and his role in Nazi ideology, but what little is in there errs on the side of refuting the connection.

The author does especially well in the area of discussing ethics (as Christianity does in general), because he points out the falseness of "situation ethics", where people ask leading questions about who should be chosen to survive or if it's okay to steal to feed your family, etc. Veith helpfully destroys this false dilemma by pointing out that it's not a challenge to objective values since merely different objective values are being posited, albeit in a sneaky way. In those cases, ones of utility and comfort, which is the best our secular contemporaries, in their vast, digitized wisdom can come up with. Pathetic.

If Nietzsche's "Antichrist" isn't enough to convince secular people of the irreplaceable nature of transcendent values like those in Christianity, then the Nazi eugenic ethics should do the trick. Secularists, when push really comes to come, don't have a valid argument against eugenics, and many support it implicitly, using the same lines of argument that the Nazis did, but just in different directions (euthenasia and suicide instead of Jews and gays). As Jordan Peterson chillingly said, "Even the Nazis had a consensus."

The problems of immanent, existentialist ethics are manifold. If one cannot call upon moral codes outside of oneself, ethical action is that of one will imposing itself on that of another; there quickly becomes nothing but an exercise of power. As Veith says: "The questioning of all authorities gives way to the elevation of a new authority which must not be questioned."

The section on art which followed the ethics chapter was confusing because of how much aesthetics lagged behind literary, philosophical, and theological developments; the modern age started back around the reformation for the former three, but for art it only hit around the late 1800s and early 1900s. We then have a confusing blur into postmodernity during the 20th century, and some of the things Veith discussed fall more neatly into what I'd call the postmodern, especially the avant garde. Oh well. Long story short, the Nazis were very "realist"-oriented with their art (contradicting transcendence), they suffered from the "rebel alliance problem" (wanting the iconoclasm but also wanting icons / wanting to be rebels but also being the new status quo), and they had a focus on kitcsh-y art not unlike the socialist realism of the commies of the time.

Nearer to the end we get a great discussion of fascism's relationship to postmodern thought, and one of the most interesting points Veith made was about how we talk about "interrogating a text" (and in postmodernity, everything is seen as a text, it's literary analysis ad nauseam), and that metaphor (interrogating the text) is really the perfect one. I read The Gulag Archipelago at the same time as this book, and immediately made the same connection that Veith did, namely that this interrogation is just like a totalitarian interrogation where they already have decided you're guilty, they just want you to confess what you're guilty of; also, they'll torture you as much as they have to to get the answer. This made me put the book down and hit my forehead at how perfectly the metaphor operates.

There's a few other hot takes in this section, such as the following:

"The only difference is that what most postmodernist critics decry, the fascists celebrate. They agree on the facts."

"Postmodernists, like western tourists, prefer those of other cultures to dress in their native costumes... Postmodernist primitivism, they [native Africans] find, is condescending, racist, and antiprogressive."

"But the Holocaust was objectively real. It was not a meaning-projection onto indeterminate data. It was not merely a "text." The euthanasia clinics and the concentration camps actually existed; the annihilation of six million Jews actually happened. Those who died were not "fictions." What suffered in the camps was not "the myth of the self" but a real person."

"Without a transcendent reference point, there are no criteria for progress."


The first of these is something I've remarked upon (with great fear) in other reviews, the second is bitterly ironic, the third is enraging (you can feel the anger stuck in Veith's throat as he typed that section, and it delivers), and the fourth is something I've seen C. S. Lewis echo as well.

The book then turns to a beautiful analysis of Goethe's Faust, wherein the titular character, in his over-saturated confusion, turns to the arbiter of western civilization, the Bible, and he opens to John 1:1-- "In the beginning was the..."; each time, Faust replaces it with something worse. First, "Mind", then "Power", and finally "Deed". Veith terrifyingly points out we're in the "power" stage right now, and Nazism is an example of the "deed" stage.... how many more bodies do we need before we abandon this dead end?

The end of the book very surprisingly regurgitated a summary of Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death", which I just finished. His reiteration felt a bit tired, and I was surprised that he swallowed that book whole, not even modifying any of its ideas, but displaying them whole and without criticism. Unfortunately, the ending of the book was more of a whimper than the middle and very start, especially when Veith bemoaned fascistic tendencies in popular culture, such as rock and metal; the problem I had with that is that he quoted a fake Metallica quote: "Scream, as I'm killing you", which seems to be a bastardized/misheard version of Master of Puppets:

Taste me, you will see
More is all you need
Dedicated to
How I'm killing you

Come crawling faster (faster)
Obey your master (master)
Your life burns faster (faster)

Obey your
Master
Master
Master of puppets, I'm pulling your strings
Twisting your mind and smashing your dreams
Blinded by me, you can't see a thing
Just call my name 'cause I'll hear you scream


As you can see, these are separated by quite a few words, so I don't know how he mixed them up in his head. Also, Metallica isn't Death Metal, and there is no genre known as "Punk Metal", that would be called Hardcore or Crossover Thrash. I found it especially ironic that the author a Christian (perhaps even an LCMS Lutheran like me), who has certainly sat through countless sermons where the pastor speaks as the devil, has a hard time understanding how metal bands could do the same thing, warning against violence, drugs, etc. instead of supporting them. Perhaps the book's last words will put a better taste in your mouth, as they aptly sum up the book:

Fascism is the modern world's nostalgia for paganism. It is a sophisticated culture's revolt against God.


Ultimately, all sins are derivative of the primordial sin of idolatry, i.e. not valuating God as your god, putting something else in His place. Fascism isn't particularly creative in its idolatry, more just regressive. I think though fascism is mostly underground nowadays, it definitely is less of a threat than radical leftism, which is discussed more openly and flirts with revolution more openly. Time will tell which will start the next senseless genocide. Perhaps by then we'll have a brand new third option like robots or chemicals or bio-warfare. Let's hope we don't live to see that.

[Han · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned so much! I could not set this book down. Absolutely thought provoking and superb on all counts.

It is outdated, but nonetheless worthy of being engaged with.

[Amber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Modern Fascism is a guidebook to how a bunch of ideas come together to produce really bad consequences. Veith first spends some time reviewing the origins of fascism and trying to pinpoint what exactly it is and isn’t. He dispels the myth that fascism is distinct to the “right” and shows how it overlaps with communism. Ideas that influenced the formation of fascism include romanticism, Darwinism, existentialism, primitivism, environmentalism, socialism, and nationalism among others. The rise of philosophies that directly opposed the traditions of rationalism and transcendence formed the basis of the fascist movements.

Veith then takes the reader through Modernism and Postmodernism, comparing and contrasting the new philosophies with the old. The dangers of fascist thinking are still alive and well, especially in our universities and mass media. He shows how deconstruction reduces everything to propaganda. When the word is meaningless, everything is about images. Along with relativism (the war against absolute truth and morality), these two ideas set the stage to destroy Western Civilization. All that is left to fill the vacuum is arbitrary power. The end of the book shifts focus to the dangers of the mob, mass media, and violence. Written in 1993 before the rise of the internet, the author could not have known how powerful these influences would become. Reason has been replaced with emotional tyranny. Its easy to see now how fascism has infiltrated both the left and the right in our current political climate. As predicted in this book, the new forms of fascism have erupted into violent behavior. People like to joke about Antifa fighting fascism with fascism, and it is so true!

Personally, I found this book really challenged some of my ways of thinking…. showing how existentialism had crept into my own views of authenticity and libertarianism. There is so much in this small book, I cannot do it justice. I would highly recommend Modern Fascism along with Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver. Read it. Have your kids read it, especially before they leave for university.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding.

[Aaron Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

Contemporary mass politics is very different from the democratic ideals of Madison and Jefferson. Instead of rational analysis of issues and reasoned debate, our political discourse turns on image manipulation through the mass media. The electronic media has created a genuine mass culture. Visual images take the place of language; emotionalism takes the place of logic. Politics is trivialized; citizens are manipulated, but they are molded into a common will. This was Goebbel's dream.
Moral issues are today almost impossible to discuss in objective terms. Euthanasia is back. People clamor for their right to die. One out of four pregnancies ends in abortion, amounting to millions and millions. In discussing such issues, it becomes evident that perhaps the majority of people today have no concept of an objective morality that transcends the individual and the culture. Morality is reduced to social utility or the assertion of the will. This was precisely the Nazi ethic.



Fascism is an ideology purged of Judeo-Christian values.

Fascism can be understood most clearly in terms of its arch-enemy, the Jew. Just as the Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews, fascism sought to eliminate the Judeo-Christian tradition from Western culture.
Ernst Nolte has defined fascism as "the practical and violent resistance to transcendence." Whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition focuses on a transcendent God and a transcendent moral law, fascist spirituality is centered upon what is tangible. Nature and the community assume the mystical role they held in the ancient mythological religions. Religious zeal is displaced away from the transcendent onto the immanent: the land, the people, the blood, the will.
Fascists seek an organic, neomythological unity of nature, the community, and the self. The concepts of a God who is above nature and a moral law that is above society are rejected. Such transcendent beliefs are alienating, cutting off human beings from their natural existence and from each other.



Communism vs. Fascism

Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong, centralized governments and rejected a free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force, synthesizing the best of both extremes. There are important differences and bitter ideological enmity between Marxism and fascism; but their opposition to each other should not disguise their kinship as revolutionary socialist ideologies.

Marxist socialism is international in scope, grounded in the universal struggle between those who own the means of production and the workers whom they exploit. For Marx, nations are an artificial construction of the bourgeoisie, a mechanism of laws and mystification designed for social control. True socialism will come when "the workers of the world unite" to throw off their economic masters.
National socialism, on the other hand, stresses national solidarity, not class struggle. The goal is national unity, a collective in which everyone cooperates in their own roles for the national good. Fascists criticize Marxists for minimizing the cultural and communal ties that define a nation. For fascists, Marxism is too similar to capitalism. Both reduce human life to economic terms and are grounded in scientific rationalism.

[Dona · Rating 4 out of 5]

Almost thirty years has past since this book was published and it more applicable today than then. I would say it is a must read except for the fact that it is very academic. I would have given it five stars if I hadn’t struggled through the language, which is interesting in that the author mentions how the deterioration of language is an opening to Fascism!! I think I’m getting old and not used to such heavy writing. I also struggle with Philosophy but it was needed in the book to explain Fascism.

[Jarl · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good treatment of the different tenets of fascism and how there are lines of thought in the modern history of ideas that have commonalities with fascism. Veith demonstrates how this ideology at its core is a rejection of transcendence and a prideful elevation of "the will to power". Veith's only weakness is that he sometimes seem to analyze fascism through the lens of a liberal individualism typical for many american conservatives.

[Almir · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5⭐

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you never quite understood what Fascism is (after all, Communism generally gets much more presence in history class), this book will take care of that deficiency. It will also take you, in scrupulous detail, through the attendant philosphies that follow in Fascism's train, complete with revealing quotes from its proponents. The greatest value of this little volume, however, is that it is also a cautionary tale for today. Throughout, Dr. Veith draws out the parallels between the Fascism of WWII Italy and Germany and the current American scene. Agree or not as you will with his conclusions, but it is sure to make you think about the paths we may be choosing.

[After a second reading, completed 8/9/15]
A re-read proves that there is still much insight here into what exactly Fascism is. The distinction between transcendence and immanence (the latter of which is at the heart of Fascism) stood out for me. However, I also felt that the book may be beginning to show its age a bit. Some of the examples of ways in which Fascist tendencies manifest themselves in current society seem less compelling now that the book is 20 years old. This also makes some of the "yes, but this counter-intuitive point is still true" arguments feel strained. Nevertheless, there is much here of worth in a society that does reject transcendence, even if its mania for immanence has become much more fragmented and individualistic than a Fascist philosophy promotes.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Veith distinguishes modern monocultural fascism like the Nazis from the postmodern multi-cultural fascism of liberal states. He argues that both kinds of Fascists hate traditional Judaism and Christianity because they serve a transcendent God whose authority challenges state authority. Like fascists, pomos mock transcendence. The deconstruct power, especially God's power, in order to seize power. The seize individual power and replace God with the state in order to mold the masses in their image. The media manipulation is the key to modern fascism.

An Eye-opening good read but the thesis suffers a little from a lack of primary source material.

[Olanma Ogbuehi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not an easy read, but the argument built well as I progressed through the book. The author interweaves an impressive knowledge and understanding of history, theology, art and philosophy to demonstrate that fascism is not dead, but alive and well, having mutated or become largely unrecognised. Fascism is not only what labels itself as such, but it is that which shows itself to be such, through ideology, proclamation and behaviour.

[Cindy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is fantastic, but chilling. Veith draws together many threads of popular and scholastic culture, and even the arts and reveals a common current beneath them all, a stream that never really ran dry after World War 2 and has been building in strength and finding new channels in which to flow but carries the same demonic and destructive power as it ever did.

[Bryana Beaird · Rating 4 out of 5]

With his usual brilliance and knack for cultural commentary, Veith examines aspects of the fascist theory that gave rise to Nazism and their alarming prevalence in western culture during the 21st century and throughout the latter half of the 20th century.

[Sally · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting but hard to read. The book drew parallels between fascism in the WW2 era and today. (I'm embarrassed to admit it, but the hideous cover design of this book may have something to do with my negative feelings toward it!)

[Luke Montgomery · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Scholarly yet accessible. Excellent synopsis of fascism, both past and present.