Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Monday, January 03, 2011
Sadism
After considerable difficulties the S.A. was reorganized into an armed band of several hundred thousand men to protect Nazi meetings, to break up the meetings of others and to generally terrorize those who opposed Hitler.
...the brown-shirted S.A. never became much more than a motley mob of brawlers. Many of its top leaders, beginning with its chief, Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts. Lieutenant Edmund Heines, who led the Munich S.A., was not only a homosexual but a convicted murderer. These two and dozens of others quarreled and feuded as only men of unnatural sexual inclinations, with their peculiar jealousies, can.
[...]
An organization, however streamlined and efficient, is made up of erring human beings, and in those years when Hitler was shaping his party to take over Germany’s destiny he had his fill of troubles with his chief lieutenants, who constantly quarreled not only among themselves but with him. He, who was so monumentally intolerant by his very nature, was strangely tolerant of one human condition—a man’s morals. No other party in Germany came near to attracting so many shady characters. As we have seen, a conglomeration of pimps, murderers, homosexuals, alcoholics and blackmailers flocked to the party as if to a natural haven. Hitler did not care, as long as they were useful to him. When he emerged from prison he found not only that they were at each other’s throats but that there was a demand from the more prim and respectable leaders such as Rosenberg and Ludendorff that the criminals and especially the perverts be expelled from the movement. This Hitler frankly refused to do. "I do not consider it to be the task of a political leader," he wrote in his editorial...
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History
of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer
(Simon and Schuster) 1990 :120,121-122)
Related posts:
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
Debating a Holocaust Denier
The Separation of Church and State
Monday, December 27, 2010
Relativism
Once upon a time two people were having a discussion and one made a judgment the other did not like.
So her friend said, “Who are you to judge?”
The first replied, “Who are you to judge that I am judging?”
“I….uh, what?”
“I figure that when I make a judgment I am probably the same type of person you are when you judge me for making judgments. If so, I suppose that is who I am to judge, just like you when you judge.”
“Huh? No, by asking who are you to judge I mean that you’re not supposed to judge because it is judgmental!”
“Who are you to judge what is judgmental?”
“You just need to stop that, right now!”
“Who are you to judge me?”
“I asked about you first, so you have to answer my question first.”
“It seems like just another questionable question. But who am I to judge? I am a sentient being, sentient beings think, which can become existential belief, which can become knowledge and then deeper knowledge when something is truly known. Knowledge is sound judgment and what people make further judgments based on. That is who I am to judge. I am not the omniscient “I AM that I AM.” of scriptures and I never claimed to be. I can still judge a few things here and there due to being conscious but who are you to judge?”
“Look, I never meant for you to actually answer that question.”
“I guess that question is just your passive agressive way of saying that you do not know the answer to something and do not want anyone else to know either. So you just drag everyone down to unthinking, unknowing moral degeneracy with questions which are questionable.”
“What?! Why, I…..you are judgmental!”
But her friend just laughed.






