Hitler saved by priest

Ross Elliot's picture
Submitted by Ross Elliot on Fri, 2012-01-06 09:10

Hitler saved by priest

I can't help but be struck by the historical fulfillment here. Scratch a Catholic and you'll usually find an anti-Semite. A priest saves Hitler and he goes on to exterminate six million Jews.

After all, the Jews did kill Jesus.


Elliot it is the beloved Luke

seymourblogger's picture

who makes all the anti-semitic references in his gospel. I read an article once blaming Luke for the Holocaust because of it.

Yep...

Ross Elliot's picture

"This kind of thing could lead critics to say that Objectivists (and/or atheists) just say anything to score a point against the faithful."

We would.

Eye

Don - no regulars don't know that about me

seymourblogger's picture

I'm not interested in analogizing this weak Hitler story to Objecti-schismology. They love to get all het up about trivia here. I think all the intelligent people have said good-bye a long time ago. I have read it off and on for a very long time, but mostly off. BB used to be here doing her Q & A from the 1960's NBI lectures. Sorry, that was nasty.

Quotes?

Don E. Klein's picture

Then this wasn't you talking?

“And me. I am living proof of that warning. The counter-gift destroyed everything I had built up for a lifetime. I wouldn't do it again. I would let him die or at least spend the rest of his life in a rocking chair in a home for the incurables.”

I thought it was some personal story that maybe the regulars here would be familiar with, that didn't need repeating.

I'm not interested in analogizing this weak Hitler story to Objecti-schismology.

Just a zen story

seymourblogger's picture

of oriental wisdom. It is also Nietzsche in his Genealogy of Morals. So if you want to call Nietzsche kooky, Baudrillard kooky, go ahead.
Rand did this when she destroyed NBI. Branden gave her a great deal: friends, a "family", devoted admirers as most were from his own blood family. They all supported her emotionally through the writing of Atlas. He gave her his mind/body and everything he did. Yes, he also took and learned from her, and his work brought her fame in philosophy she would never have had otherwise. And yes, it enriched him also. Isn't that what such a relationship is supposed to do: enrich both partners.

Then he "killed" her by choosing a pretty young woman to bed. so she "killed" him back. She destroyed NBI. and she lost a great deal herself by doing that. Rand was a Nietzschean through and through. Just as Wynand destroyed The Banner to save Roark when Roark knew it would make no difference for him, but that it was important for Wynand to do it. For himself. Rand did not waffle.

But oh the people here. Ugh. OMG what will people think when she says something like THAT!

Say what?

Don E. Klein's picture

seymourblogger, that’s some kooky stuff you’ve written there. I can hardly imagine what personal biographical event you’re referencing, but doubt it will convince me that a 4 year old shouldn’t help another 4 year old who is in danger of drowning.

Richard, what’s worse is that this gives the bad type of critics something to cite.

This kind of thing could lead

Richard Wiig's picture

This kind of thing could lead critics to say that Objectivists (and/or atheists) just say anything to score a point against the faithful.

But that kind of thing is the logic of this dog bit me so all dogs will bite me. Critics already do that kind of thing. No leading required.

I think you are right Don

seymourblogger's picture

but it smacks of that zen story where a master and his disciple were traveling and came to a river with swollen waters. a woman and her young child were crossing. The child slipped from her arms and floundered downstream. The master stood and watched while the child drowned. The disciple berated his master saying, "Why didn't you save the child? You are an expert swimmer and you could have saved him."

The master replied, "That child was destined to grow up, lead an army, and slaughter millions of people."

Fini.

As Baudrillard says in one of his fragments, you must be careful whose life you save. If you do that person incurs a debt that can never be repaid. Never. The counter-gift must be repaid or the person will have to suicide. The gift of life can never be repaid. Be very careful whose life you save.

And me. I am living proof of that warning. The counter-gift destroyed everything I had built up for a lifetime. I wouldn't do it again. I would let him die or at least spend the rest of his life in a rocking chair in a home for the incurables. Baudrillard gets this from Nietzsche on altruism, in his Genealogy of Morals on God and altruism. This of course is exactly where Rand got it. Forget it at your peril. I knew better and I did not heed Rand. I let my feelings take over and saved him. He could only respond by "killing" me. Just as Rand could only respond to Branden by "killing" him. Barbara Branden was exactly correct when she told Nathaniel that she wanted him dead. She did. And the person I saved wanted me dead.

No debt then.

Hey. Ross.

Richard Goode's picture

Objectivists (and/or atheists) just say anything to score a point against the faithful.

Boo. Hiss.

Don E. Klein's picture

I’m all for knocking religion, but the linked material doesn’t relate to your charges. The article says there’s a newspaper clipping, note that it doesn’t divulge the date of the clipping, that says one priest told another priest that he’d saved Hitler, aged 4, from drowning. The priest in question was the same age as Hitler, so this is about as reliable as my memory of taking singing lessons from Maria Callas when I was 4 (it could have happened). Obviously Hitler’s savior wasn’t yet a priest, so the swipe at Catholics falls flat. This kind of thing could lead critics to say that Objectivists (and/or atheists) just say anything to score a point against the faithful.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.