This post begs the question: Did Adolph Hitler really have a conscience?
Some would say the Hitler was the avatar of evil and ranks as the most pernicious human being of the 20th century and therefore he had no conscience.
I think many people think that he did not know right from wrong and therefore was more a sociopath than just an evil man.
In his Conversations with Hitler Hermann Rauschning, president of the senate of the Free City of Danzig (Gdansk) in 1933 and 1934, reported the dictator saying the following to him:
I liberate man from the constraint of a spirit…(and) from the filthy and degrading torments inflicted on himself by a chimera called conscience and morality, and from the claims of a freedom and personal autonomy that only very few can ever be up to.
According to this statement, Hitler believed, not in freedom of conscience but the next logical step–freedom from conscience.
Herman Goring, who considered himself something akin to a Vice-Fuhrer told the same author: I have no conscience.
My conscience is called Adolf Hitler.
I submit that everyone has a conscience.
Goring’s contradictory comment proves my point.
For many conscience is that voice of reason, tempered by religious faith, self-interest and human passion.
Hitler’s “conscience” was formed by his early belief in God, his painful experiences in World War II, his early successes as a politician, the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, his short-term in prison, his rhetorical powers and messianic talent for exciting and attracting millions of disciples.
The Gospels of his early religion, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were summarily replaced by those written by Darwin, Nietzsche, Wagner and most of —Machiavelli.
According to historian Lawrence Birken, Hitler’s intellectual views that fuel his conscience are rational and well grounded in Western thought.
In particular, Birken stresses, Hitler’s thinking is firmly rooted in the rationalist and scientific outlook of the 18th-century European Enlightenment.
The most attractive feature of Hitler’s ideology was thus its optimism.
It was not merely his mood but his message that carried an infectious excitement.
He was a secular messiah proclaiming a Germanic version of the “good news.”
The possibility of class reconciliation, the plans for a national revival, the identification of a universal enemy whose elimination would usher in the millennium, all stirred his audiences to their very depths.
Hitler spoke the language of the Enlightenment philosophes, a language that had almost passed out of existence in the rarefied strata of the grand intelligentsia.
Hitler’s economic worldview, writes Birken, was likewise rational, self-consistent, progressive, and entirely in keeping with Western tradition.
Hitler’s racial views were comparable to those of Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill.
This is a painful truth that the world does not want to admit.
Had he been born in America, he most likely would have been a liberal.
It is the left in this country that has calumniated the right by comparing their thinking to Nazism and Adolph Hitler–conservatives from the far right.
That intellectual legerdemain.
The word Nazi is an acronym that derives from National Socialism Party and if it is a right-wing organization it is the right-wing of a socialist bird.
The only real difference between Hitler and his 1939 partner, Josef Stalin in territorial aggrandizement was the Soviet Comintern, which had international and imperial designs, rather than Hitler’s nationalistic attempt to return Germany to its prior glory.
As a human being Hitler sought only what he perceived as the “good.”
This is right in line with the philosophy of Plato who said that men seek the true, the good and the beautiful.
What was Hitler’s “good?”
It was the resurrection of Germany as a respected world power.
Is this end evil in itself?
Do not all nations seek the good for their citizens?
No it is a good end and little different from those of Great Britain, the United States and Japan on its surface value.
The problem is not the ends but the means.
Bob Beckel, one of the left’s most argumentative agitators is up against four conservative-leaning commentators on “The Five” on Fox weekdays.
Recently he said that even though the Obama regime and the Democrats had failed to do much good these past three years, our hearts were in the rights place.
They meant well.
And Beckel was using this good feeling as why they deserved four more years to try to do good.
Now Beckel and his associates would never allow the same good feelings to the Republicans.
Beckel seems clueless or in a state of psychological denial when reminded that his ends have been damaged and perverted by his means.
This is pure Machiavellian.
It was the same with Adolph Hitler.
He viewed the infirmed, the handicapped, the elderly, the insane and all useless eaters as obstacles to German progress.
With his pure ends, it was not a quantum leap to use euthanasia, gas-filled trucks and fatal shots to rid Germany of those unworthy of life.
Later he went after the entire Jewish population of Europe.
Hitler excused his means because he believed that Germany could return to the racial purity that had made it the most dominant nation in Europe for generations.
When it comes to conservative complaints about their behavior, the American left chides them for being too judgmental, since the whole tenor of the Enlightened sixties was that freedom to be whatever a person wanted to be was the rule. All others should keep their judgments to themselves.
Well they never granted this same freedom to Ronald Reagan, so it is likely that they would not have extended to Hitler…but they did sanitize the far worse destructive means of FDR’s ally and good friend, Uncle Joe Stalin, shed more blood than the Jewish death camps.
Just ask any Ukrainian how much blood Stalin shed in the 1930s.
During the famine, which is also known as the “terror-famine in Ukraine” and “famine-genocide in Ukraine”, millions of Ukrainians died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.
It is this blatant hypocritical stance that fuels the liberalism of the 21st century.
In effect their conscience was formed from the same intellectual well as Adolph Hitler’s.
Hitler killed six million Jews.
American liberals have fostered the deaths of over 53 million unborn babies.
But then who is keeping score?
It must be my age because I have been getting more confused lately.
For a long time, I have referred to the book and both movies,derived from the late Swedish author Stieg Larssons, as The Girl with the Butterfly Tattoo.
Of course everyone knows it is “dragon,” instead of “butterfly.”
If I had butterflies on the brain six months ago, I think my whole body must be permeated with them after viewing Lad Allen’s DVD Metamorphosis: The Beauty &Design of Butterflies. (Illustra Media Series) You can get it at:
No, I haven’t developed a sudden interest in entomology.
I had to review it for an interview with the producer for Phyllis Schlafly‘s hour-long syndicated radio program.
It is always an honor for me to sit in for this prominent woman, conservative author and political activist when she is speaking before some large assembly around the country.
The video was marvelous but I had to admit it was a tough sell for a radio program.
From the very beginning I thought this would be a tough interview because the pure natural beauty of the Monarch has to be seen to be appreciated.
How can I show pictures on the radio?
Allen would have been better served on television.
But persevere we did!
I was deeply impressed by the deep and varied complexity of the flittering creature.
But of course Allen did not appear on our program just to discuss the butterfly by itself but he wanted to talk about it in terms of its scientific and metaphysical relationship with an Intelligent Designer.
I asked him why the Monarch?
He said there were lots of different species to choose from but they had to choose one that they could videotape easily and could track through all of its habits and routines.
They would never have attempted this with the species that I think is an even better choice than the Monarch and that is the Bengal Tiger.
Allen said they did not want to be eaten by their subject before finishing the DVD.
When you compare the Bengal Tiger and the Monarch butterfly with the sketchy fossil record of Darwinian biologists I think one need conclude that what the left is selling in not scientific truth but a politicized agenda that defines another sector of the centuries-long culture war.
For such a tiny being to have that much detail, both inside and outside, is a visible proof of the invisible God that thousands of scientists have so much trouble in accepting.
The navigational system of the Monarch’s eyes allows them to traverse 2500 miles during their annual migration from the warm climates of the Unites States to the milkweed plants which they need for breeding in temperate Mexico.
This alone is enough to make me wonder aloud how supposedly learned and highly educated scientists cannot not see the handiwork of God or at least some Intelligent Designer at work.
For anyone to say or argue that the Monarch butterfly just evolved randomly is so silly an idea one would be tempted to laugh in the collective faces of this highly educated scientific elite.
The whole notion of Darwinian evolutionary is an insult to our human intelligence.
Why students fail to question it in school or when they are free of the propaganda force of our schools and the power of the grade, they don’t renounce it, is way beyond my understanding.
I told Allen during the program that according to my historical understanding, until the Renaissance, the idea of God, as the creator of the world and the center of the universe, was the central feature in Western Civilization.
It was the humanistic ideas of the Renaissance that relegated God to the periphery of intellectual and cultural pursuits.
This picked up even greater steam during the French Revolution and its aftermath.
The Deism of that period preached a passive God who did not seem very interested in His creatures’ lives.
Like some sort of sadistic voyeur, He just watches.
As the intellectual elite grew more godlike in its own self estimation, they conspired to get rid of God on earth by killing His servants—His priests and nuns and destroying His houses of worship.
Still He persisted.
One divine faculty they never could explain away was His powers of creation.
His creation was the last stumbling block.
In what might be called supply side biology, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution provided the elite with a scientific lever with which they could remove the creation boulder.
Even though it was a mere theory, and violated the scientific method that includes observation and experimentation, it is accepted as the absolute gospel truth, and fast became the false idol of the new religion that thousands of skeptical scientists genuflect before.
God was finally, after many centuries eliminated.
He was proven as a non-Person, who need not apply on Christmas and Easter, feast days that are slowly slipping from the American cultural consciousness.
Does that mean there is no God?
Of course not.
All scientists know that nature abhors a vacuum.
As a result millions of their egos are lining up to collectively file as the new god of the universe.
The boundless ego of man is ready and willing to be worshiped and deified.
Millions will bow before them in the public arena and will never question their heterodoxy.
I can hear their Big Amen resounding in college and university classrooms all over America, while God’s statues, relics and icons are being removed like those of a fallen dictator after a revolution.
To me it is nothing more than a discordant choir, clamoring the empty verses of a decaying philosophy that signifies nothing and has been filled with the wet dreams of god-deniers throughout history.
When they have all passed from the earth, God will still be sitting in His architectural seat and taking joy in those who still love Him.
Worse than Pearl Harbor, January 22, 1973 is a day that has lived in infamy for 39 years.
With the 39th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that effectively established the alleged unlimited right to an abortion through all nine months of a woman’s pregnancy, it is fitting to explore some of the basic components of that decision so that we may be able to explain, convince and change the hearts and minds of many who tend toward the choice side of the equation.
I Roe v. Wade— the Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the woman’s health.
Saying that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the woman’s current trimester of pregnancy.
(This was never actually the case and the subsequent history of the decision exposed its faulty premise.)
II Penumbra—One of the most important aspects of the Roe decision was the way it stretched the Justices’ logic beyond all creditable belief. The opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declares that abortion is a “fundamental right” under the U.S. Constitution and substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.
Nowhere in the amendment does the word abortion or anything akin to it appear.
What or where is the penumbra that jeopardized the lives of virtually every unwanted unborn child in America?
It resides in the darkest shadows that Justice Blackmun saw emanating from the 14th amendment.
In other words, he created a “right” for all women that has served as a death sentence for over 50 million unborn babies since 1973.
As a result the unborn have as many rights as Nazi German’s Untermenschen and the ante-bellum South’s black chattel had.
III Norma McCorvey— In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child.
She returned to Dallas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped, as she could then obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas‘ anti-abortion laws allowed abortion in the cases of rape and incest).
However, this scheme failed, as there was no police report documenting the false rape.
She told Congress in 1998 after she had joined the prolife movement that it was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the “right” to abortion out of legal thin air.
But her lawyers Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told McCorvey that what she had signed would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions.
Weddington never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control either.
McCorvey’s daughter was born well before the decision was ever decided.
IV Doe v. Bolton— Doe was decided on the same day as Roe.
In a very real sense it is more important that the much-more well-known Roe decision.
The Georgia law in question permitted abortion only in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or the possibility of severe or fatal injury to the mother.
Other restrictions included the requirement that the procedure be approved in writing by three physicians and by a special committee of the staff of the hospital where the abortion was to be performed.
In addition, only Georgia residents could receive abortions under this statutory scheme: non-residents could not have an abortion in Georgia under any circumstances.
The plaintiff, a pregnant woman who was given the pseudonym “Mary Doe” in court papers to protect her identity, sued Arthur K. Bolton, then the Attorney General of Georgia, as the official responsible for enforcing the law.
The anonymous plaintiff has since been identified as Sandra Cano, a 22-year-old mother of three who was nine weeks pregnant at the time the lawsuit was filed. Cano, like McCorvey joined the prolife side of the aisle.
She loudly complained that her attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, lied to her in order to have a plaintiff. Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman could obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health.
The Court defined health as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, ‘an abortion is necessary’ is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. This is effect, over-rode Roe’s trimester limitations right up until the exact moment of the child’s birth.
Practically this meant for whatever reason the woman determined.
V Right to Choose— The person who created this slogan should be in the Abortion Hall of Fame.
Abortion-rights advocates have persuasively argued that whether or not to continue with a pregnancy is an inviolable personal choice, as it involves a woman’s body, personal health, and future.
They believe that both parents’ and children’s lives are better when abortions are legal, thus preventing women from going to desperate lengths to obtain illegal abortions.
More broadly, abortion-rights advocates frame their beliefs in terms of individual liberty, reproductive freedom, and reproductive rights.
Abortion-rights individuals rarely consider themselves “pro-abortion,” because they consider abortion an issue of bodily autonomy, and find forced abortion to be as legally and morally indefensible as the outlawing of abortion.
But the truth of the matter that none of them ever encourage a woman to keep her baby because it would hurt their cause.
Radical feminists hold up coat-hangers and back-alley abortion, as the symbols of their movement.
Years later this lie of 10,000 female deaths from the so-called back alley abortion, which really is a misnomer. Most illegal abortions took place inside an office, clinic or a hospital.which was another falsehood.
Since the discovery of penicillin in 1928, the death rate from illegal abortion was less than 50 a year.
The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester, from 15 to 36 weeks.
It is often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. In reality the baby is nearly delivered.
With his/her head still partly in the birth canal, scissors are used to penetrate the back of the neck and skull.
A vacuum tube is inserted and the baby’s brain is extracted from its head, collapsing the skull. The dead newborn than is delivered.
This horrific practice was performed on an average of 2500 times a year in the United States and has served as ghastly proof of the evils inherent in this choice.
On a similar note, I was taken back by an article on Republican candidate, Rick Santorum, who over the course of his Congressional career was a untiring voice for the unborn.
With reason and logic on his side he made his pro-abortion colleagues quivers before his very words.
He once asked ow fellow Senators, Democrats Frank Lautenberg and former Senator Russ Feingold who opposed his proposed ban on Partial Birth Abortion if the baby slipped out of the birth canal before the doctor could stick his scissors in her neck, could the born baby still be killed because that was the mother’s choice?
Neither would say no.
In 1999 during a debate with Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Santorum asked her: Would you agree that once the child is born, separated from the mother, that the child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed?
Boxer responded: I think when you bring the baby home…
So I guess according to this senator life really begins at home.
During our bi-weekly Men’s Bible Study at my Church last week, old Charlie, one of my two liberal nemeses, mentioned that he had picked up a copy of John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come, published in February, 1678 and read it that afternoon.
Christian, an everyman character, is the protagonist of the allegory, which centers itself in his journey from his hometown, the “City of Destruction” (“this world”), to the “Celestial City” atop Mt. Zion.
Christian is weighed down by a great burden, the knowledge of his sin, which he believed came from his reading the book in his hand.
Charlie’s religious’ curiosity got me to thinking about my own journey as a cradle Catholic.
I was born into a faith that had existed for nearly 2000 years.
It had survived devastating attacks from without and from within.
It has endured a history or bloody persecution in which thousands of its faithful were ripped apart by wild beasts, crucified, burned alive and thrown off high cliffs, drawn and quartered–all because they believed in the Divinity of the Christ.
It has launched crusades and burned a few thousand heretics at the stake in defense of the faith.
It is a religion that is filled with mystery, ceremony, pomp and high circumstance.
It has smells that excite and calm, music that raises the spirit and comforts the will.
Theologically it soars like the eagle as it tries to touch the hand of God.
It can cure disease, ease suffering and prepare for the final moments of life.
It is a church of over one billion people.
It has as many different strains of thinking as a library does.
But being a faith of deep and high-minded ideas, sometimes it confuses.
Sometimes it frightens.
For all its attendant holiness, its leaders sometimes seem caught in a whirling vortex of charity and unadulterated power that idly dismisses reason and moral logic in favor of pragmatic results.
Some of its popes have done the work of the enemy.
Others have been saintly.
Most have been ambitious while others mediocre.
The Church is a very human institution— a veritable living contradiction.
I once asked a priest during a Christmas Mission at our parish if he had any advice for someone who had been born into the pre-Vatican Church but came to his full religious maturity during the initial reforms of the Second Vatican Council, called by Pope John XXIII.
I don’t really remember if he answered my question or if any of the 60 other people in attendance could identify with my dilemma but my mere stating the question was enough for me to come to an understanding of my feelings and thought about my relationship to the Catholic Church.
I am alas caught twixt the old and new Catholic Church.
There are many things about my birth church, which is vastly different from my adult church, that I relish.
As a child, rules, the actual law and order of the faith were deeply instilled in me, by habited nuns and serious priests.
Along with the Baltimore Catechism they laid the foundation for my faith.
We all learned the dogma of the faith by rote memory with a diligence and certitude that armed us to face the three major enemies, who competed for our immortal souls–the world, the flesh and the devil.
As Dragnet’s Sergeant Joe Friday might have said, we knew the facts.
I doubt if the same could be said today.
The Church’s teaching on sexual morality was complicated.
Most of our parents excused themselves from telling about the facts of life.
It was just too embarassing for them to broach.
Modesty forced most of them to shroud their bodies from our view and as an only child I had no siblings who could have explained my contradictory feelings about my own anotomy.
We were taught our bodies were the temples of the Holy Ghost, yet they were also the snares of the devil.
We were warmed about improper touches to ourselves and to others.
Girls were taught to dress modestly—no long pants, though I do remember a few occasions when they wore Bermuda shorts.
Most dirty magazines of the day were, not what anyone would call pornographic but more of the naturalist pulp magazines of nude sunbathers.
I remember a friend, discovering a stash of such magazines in some weeds down by the local public high school.
His widowed mother had assured him he could could look at pictures of naked women as long as he did not get aroused.
To me this was my very first instruction in what I now understand as John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
It was this friend who actually instructed me and a few others in the facts of life.
The God I was taught in those days was also more a God of Justice than a God of Love.
I have to admit He was scary, freightening and seemingly elusive.
I remember being yelled at in the Confessional by a priest, who warned me of the powers of Almighty God.
He literally put the fear of eternal damnation within my soul at that moment.
In retrospect, I think that is really unfair to God.
But in a way it did work.
I have kept the faith all these years.
I have avoided most of the near occasions of sins.
After studying under the Jesuits for 11 year, I was able to rationalize those I couldn’t avoid.
I have been faithfully married to the same woman for over 45 years and still look at women in the same appreciative way that I adopted in the bushes at Forest Hills high school.
However the abject legalism did take a toll on my understanding of God’s divine mercy and the Agape side of His unlimited personality.
For most of my life I have been a habitual worrier who is relieved when things are over, instead of enjoying the joyful moments of my life.
But the new church is different.
The church of love and forgiveness has replaced the church of law and order.
In the Church of divine rules, I had tried to micromanage everything and had left nothing up to God
The new church is the worst nightmare of Doestesky’s Grand Inquistor, who cursed God for making men with a free will and granting them the freedom to practice it.
During Holy Hour I have learned to open my soul and and heart in an honest and true way so that my life is more open to His grace.
The priest called my last confession–beautiful.
This would never have been possible in the old church.
I have learned to accept my body as it is and realize that it was made in the image and likeness of God and was not something dirty and offensive
However people still need honest and realistic rules—like the 10 Commandments and Jesus’ perfection of them with the emphasis on loving all other human beings.
The modern ideas of relativism and secularism have infected the culture and with it, in may places the church and its members.
Scandal, indifference and moral confusion abound.
I see many others who do not have that the double-grounding in the faith that I have.
Maybe even old Charlie would agree that this pilgrim has made some progress in his journey to that celestial city.