The Soapboxx
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Perception Of Good And Evil. Or, Did Hitler Think Of Himself As A Monster?
In his autobiography, Carl Panzram, a serial killer in America at the end of 1920s, wrote of himself as 'rage personified'. A prolific thief as well as a murderer, Panzram would often rape the men he robbed not, he claimed, because he was a homosexual, but because it was a way to dominate and humiliate them.
"In my lifetime I have murdered 21 human beings, I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy on more than 1,000 male human beings. For all these things I am not in the least bit sorry." —Carl Panzram
Panzram is somewhat unusual in his stance of his position in society. He considered and thought of himself as a bad man; as an evil man. He didn't try and justify his actions and he didn't try and redeem himself in any way. He accepted who he was.
I've often wondered if others in the history of inhumane activity shared this self-analysis; Hitler, for example.
Did Hitler consider himself a bad person? Did he think of himself as a fascist? As a monster? Or did he consider himself a good man. A humanitarian, even. A righter-of-wrongs.
Consider also the animal abuser; does he (or she) consider himself above the actions, the damage being caused? Does he think of himself as an abuser of animals? Or does the kind of mentality that allows and encourages abuse separate one's self from the cause and effect, and from the analysis and conclusion?
I fully realise there is no universal answer and that, for example, one kind of, say, rapist, who could be completely insane, would not have the same thought process as another. One also accepts that the activities above inevitably lead to a conclusion of madness. I am pretty sure that Hitler, however, was considered a sane individual, even if to all intents and purposes, and to the majority, his actions were anything but.
Is it fair to say that any kind of serial-offender shares similar qualities with another? And that on some level they should be able to self-analyse their actions and respond in some way to the question: are you a bad person?
Are you?
"In my lifetime I have murdered 21 human beings, I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy on more than 1,000 male human beings. For all these things I am not in the least bit sorry." —Carl Panzram
Panzram is somewhat unusual in his stance of his position in society. He considered and thought of himself as a bad man; as an evil man. He didn't try and justify his actions and he didn't try and redeem himself in any way. He accepted who he was.
I've often wondered if others in the history of inhumane activity shared this self-analysis; Hitler, for example.
Did Hitler consider himself a bad person? Did he think of himself as a fascist? As a monster? Or did he consider himself a good man. A humanitarian, even. A righter-of-wrongs.
Consider also the animal abuser; does he (or she) consider himself above the actions, the damage being caused? Does he think of himself as an abuser of animals? Or does the kind of mentality that allows and encourages abuse separate one's self from the cause and effect, and from the analysis and conclusion?
I fully realise there is no universal answer and that, for example, one kind of, say, rapist, who could be completely insane, would not have the same thought process as another. One also accepts that the activities above inevitably lead to a conclusion of madness. I am pretty sure that Hitler, however, was considered a sane individual, even if to all intents and purposes, and to the majority, his actions were anything but.
Is it fair to say that any kind of serial-offender shares similar qualities with another? And that on some level they should be able to self-analyse their actions and respond in some way to the question: are you a bad person?
Are you?
Recent Posts
Archives
