The Gospel Truth

The Good Nazi | January 31, 2014

We have heard the new pope speak of his friendship with a few Marxists who he found were good men.  I assume he has made these personal judgments based on the Marxists’ professed compassion for the poor.

Marxists and liberals always express their devotion to the poor, the downtrodden and the underclass.  They expressively vow to use the powers of violence, revolution and eventually big government to right all the evils of nature, individualism and its economic expression capitalism.

Karl Marx 001.jpg

Some of the pope’s best friends?

Yet they generally do not believe in God, his teachings or his church.

So how can they be good?

Is a compassion for the poor all they need?

The pope has flirted with Liberation Theology.  His native Argentina is riven with its thinking, so it is not a stretch to assume he has had some interest in its teachings, even though his two predecessors condemned it as inconsistent with Christianity.

Gustavo gutierrez.jpg

Salvation through the poor?

These liberationisti believe that human salvation is collective and is attained primarily through a love of the poor.

What about the Nazis?

They were socialists just as the Marxists so why have we demonized them as the perfect historical ogres?

No, they did not express a specific love of the poor.  To the contrary the poor of the world were probably lumped in with the useless eaters, those who were deemed unworthy of life.

But Marxists also have always had their death panels that were designed to terminate the people who stood in the way of the revolution.  I am quite certain the religious poor would not be acceptable in their future earthly kingdom.

So killing people seems to be a useful method for both Marxists and Nazis  though only the Marxists seem to be good.

Yet maybe good is in the eye of the beholder and can have many different definitions that would qualify both the Marxist and the Nazi.

The good Nazi?

Their thinking seems predicated on what Pope Benedict called a dictatorship of relativity.

Most modern autocrats who despise Christian morality have to create a substitute morality to fill the moral vacuum they create when the old morality falls by the wayside.

They see the necessity to contrive a set of moral principles that would define good for that particular society whether it be Marxist, Nazi or even capitalist.

To the Marxist the main commandments would be a love of the Revolution and compassion for the poor.

But in essence that love for the poor seems to be just reserved for the generic poor.

One could say that like cartoon character, Lucy Van Pelt, they loved humanity but hated individual people.

Lucy van Pelt.png

Loved humanity not people

If individuals, who happen to be poor do not accept the revolution and the party as their savior and lord, they will not live in its earthly paradise.

The same is true of the good Nazi.  They believed passionately in the Vaterland and the purity of its blood.  Theirs was a religion based on Land und Blutland and blood, while the Marxists had their religion of man.

People who did not fit in had to suffer their wrath but they were good to their own kind.  I have read stories about what good family men many of them were and even Hitler was kind to children and animals.  He never smoked, was a vegetarian and believed in gun control for the masses.

These latter ideas are all part of what has become an emerging social religion in this country.

President Barack Obama has joined in this debate.  Religion does not seem to be part of his make-up.  During his peripatetic life he has experienced many kinds of religious influence, starting with the atheism of most of his immediate family.

In Indonesia with his mother and step-father as a young boy he studied Islam and even attended a Catholic school for a short time.  In Chicago he joined the Church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his Black Liberation Theology was a mere subset of Marxist praxis and indicative of Obama’s deep commitment to racial socialism and Marxism.

I really don’t know how Obama could call himself a Christian when there was very little of Christ in Wright’s teachings.

It was Obama himself who said that the religion of America had become a practical atheism.

Barack and Michelle Obama, their children, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Devout or just practical

So to carry on with my theme can an American atheist be a good person?

I know many of them do think they are good people while they demonize Republicans, prolifers, anti-gun control advocates and anyone else who has the effrontery to challenge their moral and political system.

I might add that in my personal travels I have met a few self-admitted atheists who seemed at face value to be good people.  But I doubt their goodness sprang from their denial of God’s existence.  More than likely they had subconsciously adopted from either their life experiences or professional training.

One self-declared atheist in particular, who used to call my radio show years ago, was adamantly and intellectually convinced abortion was a moral good for women yet he would do chores and errands for his aging mother.

When I told him that I thought he was doing the work of sainthood, he thanked me for seeing some good in him.  I surmise that would hold true of many others in his category as well.

Since the 1950s this kind of thinking, which harkens back to the French Enlightenment, has based morality, not on the ethos of Jesus Christ and his Church but on a self-contrived system of thought that has evolved from the science of man.

It was a 16th century renegade Catholic and a convert to Calvinism Pierre Bayle, whose writings argued that religion and morality should be separate. Bayle was not an atheist, at least not an open one, yet he believed that atheists though they might have a sticky time of it in the afterlife, could be as moral as anyone.  I would also surmise that many Americans would second this idea.

Pierre Bayle by Louis Ferdinand Elle.jpg

Hume and Voltaire found him fascinating

His thinking fascinated many of the Enlightened thinkers into the 18th century, such as Hume , Voltaire, Spinoza and Leibniz.

According to Bayle all one had to do is be a good citizen to be a moral man.

This idea is certainly a dominant one in American society.

Many people, including millions of American Catholics would prefer be called Catholic Americans for their acceptance and even promotion of Obama’s secular values rather than American Catholics.

To Obama morality does not come from God or some other deity but from man, more specifically government men and by extension the culture they create.

So a society that reveres abortion on demand, promiscuous sex, drug use, divorce, and homosexuality can develop an ethos based on those life styles and actions.

This essentially had been the goal of the French Revolution, which first sought to destroy the Church, the crown and the middle class or bourgeoise.

Forebears of Progressivism

Its progressive heirs, such as liberals and Marxists, have labored to destroy the family, the Christian church and private property or capitalism.  It would seem that they are winning.

These targets are all the historic enemies and sinners against the new morality of big government.

Under the progressive aegis Marxists, abortionists and non-smokers can be considered good people.  All others must bow before these secular demigods and ask for the government’s forgiveness for their sins.

Since Nazism has not been redeemed, even though many of its teachings have become part of the new culture, they could not be considered good by this relative morality.

However had Germany won the war instead of Soviet Russia than we would probably be talking about the Good Nazi instead of the Good Marxist.


1 Comment »

  1. Heh heh heh… I used to call your WGNU show, I *am* an atheist and yes, I’ve been known to do a “good turn” for my mother from time to time—not to mention others.

    If I am “good” then I don’t claim that any such goodness came out of rejection of theology.

    I’m pretty sure that most people, left to their own devices and not influenced by a lot of manipulative theosophy will chuse “good” over bad.

    Early humans and even human ancestors survived not by dint of being strong creatures and probably not so much by being “smart” and pulling a “MacGyver” to get out of dire straits. Man’s true survival advantage is in being “good” as I think most people in most cultures would understand that term. This would include working to the advantage of the “greater good”, or what the Preamble to our Constitution calls “the general welfare”.

    We ( or most of us anyway ) get a sense of satisfaction when “our team” prevails against the other team. We cooperate together for survival. That’s not to say we don’t also employ self-interest, but it’s enlightened by the ability to figure out that it’s in our self-interest to be part of a community and a *practical* community—and in that sense I’m talking about trying to harness the supposed base instincts for self-interest to the ox-cart of the “greater good”.

    The United States was predicated on old testament laws. I used to rant and rail against this fact but have had to admit it was. Part of the law was to have system of obtaining patents on novel ideas and new creations of matter. This gave individuals who had such insights a self-interest in being able to profit well from their discoveries ( encouraging them to have such ) but the whole intent of the establishment of the patent office was the furtherance of technological progress to effect “the general welfare”.

    I have a friend and also former employer who was RC. We were having a lunch-time or after-work discussion and I was holding forth about the evils of communism and my friend challenged me to actually define communism. I used the classic “from each according to his abilities/to each according to his needs” explanation and he thought about that and then responded “that’s my religion” ( meaning what he believed in as a member of the Universal Church ).

    Naturally as an atheist I never found communism’s supposed atheism to be so objectionable. It is communism’s refusal to recognize human nature for what it is ( or claim to appear to ) which I find objectionable. “You can’t make a silk purse of a sow’s ear—you’ll never get the purse and succeed only in angering the sow”. This is a good truism and recognizes the wisdom of our national founders taking into account the full range of human inclinations ( the common ones, I’m not talking about the aberrant diseased pathologies which are so often attributed by religions to the state of atheism and even adeism—I’m one of those too ).

    I’ve heard it said that communism would work great—if men were all angels instead of mere men.

    The best most essential principle, Self Evident Right of Man or “eternal verity” is found where individual and group interest intersect. Our basic law speaks to this in our 2nd Amendment. It gives the individual his interest in being able to preserve his individual life and those of his dear ones and in so-doing also arms the 4th branch of government to be a foil against the power of the other three should they ever figure out to stop fighting one-another and band together against the People from whom their authority to govern flows.

    That authority flows from our power to defend our principles and the lives we base upon them. Mao said it thus: all power pours from the barrel of a gun”. In so saying he was explaining why he wanted to concentrate all Arms in the control of the government.

    I’ve always found it laughable that those who claim to be representing the principles upon which this nation, with it’s 2nd Amendment and it’s 4th branch of government which is never taught-about in the schools which are too-frequently influenced by government–even if it’s local government—who will then turn against the principle of self-defense when it’s the case of a woman chusing to defend her own body against the savage self-interested-only chemical attack of a fetus. The fetus makes a substance which turns off the immune response which would ordinarily cause it to be attacked on a number of fronts by it’s mother’s immune system.

    When women chuse not to defend themselves from this insidious attack they do it to be “good”. It’s altruism. They will risk their very lives *voluntarily* for the good of another and for the “greater good”. This is very similar to the manner in which the would-be-governed risked their survival as citizens ( as opposed to subjects ) by giving up some of their power to defend themselves individually and collectively to the proposed strong central government. But they had to have the assurance they would retain the essential power to obtain and possess the means both for individual and collective protection from those who might be inclined to kill/”kill” them ( meaning either to take their life or to make their lives unworthy of being lived–the life of the subject with licensed freedoms instead of the citizen with innate liberties ). So it’s always seem inconsistent for people who seem to understand that principle when it comes to guns but then refuse to recognize it when we’re dealing with some poor woman who has decided she doesn’t want to be altruistic that day.

    For what is enforced-by-law altruism other than communism?

    The beauty of this national model is it rules by consent of the ruled. Anything that smacks of taking that choice away is against the principles behind this nation.

    And though I’ve heard a lot of equivocation from the pro-life movement and it’s apologists regarding enforcing laws against abortion on the women who insist on having their rights recognized there can be no meaningful ban on abortion which is not prepared to levy penalty on the woman who chuses abortion. That’s because they can do it themselves. There are drugs and they don’t necessarily have to come from a pharmacy. Are they going to arrest some rye smut or are they going to arrest the woman who harvests it and takes it to induce her own abortion?

    The abortion foes remind me of nothing so much as the guns-are-bad-no-matter-what people who will happily attempt to put someone in jail for using one to defend their own life—-we recently had a case drawing national notoriety down in Seminole Co. Florida. The gun foes will disingenuously tell anyone and everyone “oh no we’re not after the right of the individual to defend himself” while they go along with their nefarious plans to do precisely that. And the abortion foes try to tell one-and-all that they would *never* work to see the abortion seeker come under the thumb of the law.

    Returning to our starting point we get back to my regard for my mother. Part of that regard is my knowledge that she was smart enough that had she not wanted to gestate me she would have found the way not to. So I *know* I don’t owe my life to the state and it’s laws. That’s one reason I don’t feel that the state is my nanny. I might have had several sisters. They never made it. Nature, it seems, decided they were to be aborted. I don’t know how late-term they were, we didn’t talk about them much. But they were described as “still-born” so I’m assuming they were something recognizable as a human pre-born infant. So in the land of forbidden abortions what is going to be the lot of women who deliver still births, especially if they were known to be very unhappy about being forced by fiat-of-government to gestate? Their spontaneous abortion is going to be investigated for proof of it’s spontaneity. You can’t have it any other way. If pre-born humans are accorded status of humans with human rights their deaths under “suspicious circumstances” are going to have to be investigated. If you or you or you would not have it done it doesn’t mean there aren’t some absolute unreasonable fanatics who are going to scream loud and long enough to get their fanaticism passed into law. That’s why in a nation where people could decide to go to the apothecary for the first half of it’s history and on their own initiative purchase opiates and also preparations made from hemp we now allow law-enforcement to steal people’s personal property if it’s been found to have some of these same substances secreted within. The first laws about these things were often borne more from xenophobia than concern for public health. Later on the federales got involved and in service of an international accord. They didn’t have the U.N. yet but they certainly had the same vile impulses…

    So extremism will prevail, eventually, even if the main body of people intend a kinder/gentler ( and hypocritical ) approach.

    So I could always view my poor mother in such an extremist society and having added to her sorrows at giving birth to yet another dead would-be child some invasive police inquiry. I’m not having any of that whether it’s my mother or might have been someone else’s. OBTW: if anyone should be wondering my mother was pro-choice.

    I know I know–who wouldn’t be after having brought forth something like me…

    I want to live in a nation where people don’t look at the state and see Nanny. And a good first step toward that is to look at laws abolishing abortion and thinking to one’s self that one owes one’s very life to The State. Once you have established an independent existence it’s not even the state’s obligation to protect your life. Try suing the police in some venue because they “let” some criminal kill your loved-one. You won’t get very far because they’re charged with enforcing a law against unjustified taking of life, not a law demanding protection thereof.

    Atheistic communist dictators have been known to ban abortion—Nicolae Ceausescu, for one. I doubt it was his respect for the dignity of all human life at the root of it. I’m sure it was his fear there wouldn’t be enough subjects to his regime to be worked in his industries given the fact that regimes which don’t take into account and harness human greed will frequently find themselves needing many more workers to accomplish what one in a nominally free society which recognizes human nature might need. And I’ve heard anti-abortion sages such as Limbaugh mouth much the same objection. They want us to imagine all those consumers and workers our society is doing without on account of abortion—I’ve heard it many times with my own ears. I’m not saying it’s their only objection/motivation, but which is it? And before answering remember that your deity “spits out” the fence-straddlers.

    If it should be perceived that I am “good” it’s not because I don’t believe any human being has ever had any experience of anything which could be rightfully termed “deity”. And if I should be found to be bad it’s not from that belief either. It’s because of choices I’m predisposed to make and if anything has shaped them it’s that humans are and always were relatively weak creatures compared to the others with which we vied for survival. We have to cooperate and much of what we deem “good” really is based around the elements going into that cooperative nature. I’m sure the lazy king of a pride of lions deems it “good” that the females he rules over bring in most of the food his pride eats and they probably find it “good” too, because that “business plan” is what allowed them to survive and flourish. When a tom cat slaughters the kittens of his new mate I’m sure they both deem that “good” because it’s that behavior which has contributed to their species’ survival. And if ancient Celt kings allowed themselves to be sacrificed brutally when the crops failed it wasn’t because sacrificing kings made crops grow better, it was because of a highly-developed appreciation for self-sacrifice for the good of the many—a ritualized version of something which was repeated over and over throughout prehistory and the rest of history which has time-and-again “won the day” for the greater good. And we value the self-sacrifice over the imposed human sacrifice because that’s the only version of this behavior upon which we can really count when the chips are down and a fast decision has to be made, often only by the one who sacrifices him or herself. It’s a principle at the basis of what it means to be human and I want that and only that to be the basis of the decision a woman makes ( not the state ) to sacrifice herself to child-bearing.

    In the end if we let the know-it-alls decide this type of issue for us we’ll lose the capacity to “step up” voluntarily when there’s no substitute for it. When we do, we’re done-for because that’s all we have.

    And that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

    Comment by James Stenzel — February 5, 2014 @ 12:11 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at







%d bloggers like this: