Hitler declared: “We may be inhumane, but if we rescue Germany we have performed the greatest deed in the world.”

In the name of rescuing Germany, Hitler believed that any form of action—however inhumane—was moral and honorable. Within Hitler's template, there could be no such thing as “crime.”

However, spend a moment reflecting on the episodes of political violence with which you are famliar. Can you think of a single case of war, genocide, revolution or terror that did not proceed based on the structure of thought that Hitler put forth?

"We may be inhumane but if we ____________, we have performed the greatest deed in the world."

A few examples:

• Lenin's (and Stalin's) desire to kill kulaks ("capitalists") in the name of "the People."
   
• Mao's desire to kill landlords ("capitalists") in the name of "the People."
   
• Lincoln's desire to destroy the Confederacy in order to "preserve the union."
   
• Woodrow Wilson's participation in the First World War in order to "make the world safe for democracy."
   
• Bin Laden's desire to kill "infidels" in the name of Allah (the essence of Islamic radicalism).
   
• George W. Bush's war against Iraq in the name of "bringing democracy to the Middle-East."

How could it be otherwise? How could human beings slaughter other human beings without believing that this killing is necessary and justified in the name of rescuing a sacred ideal?  

We like to say that killing is "immoral," but this is our personal opinion. The nature of political life--violence in political life--stems from the belief that killing is moral--because it is undertaken in the name of a preserving the sacred ideal that defines one's society.