[CarolinaGuitarman]

" He did "use" that imagery, like any good propagandist would. The question is whether this was the reason for his actions, and the answer to that is no, as you state yourself:"

No, I stated no such thing, and your quote doesn't back you up in the least. There is no reason to think he didn't believe what he said. He certainly acted upon it.

" Huh. And how do you, an atheist, define evil? Can "evil" possibly exist?"

He initiated force against others. That's always an evil.

" As it happens, one can be both "insane" (a rather squishy term) and aware of their actions."

You can't be aware of the consequences of your actions if you are insane. That's the definition of insanity.

"As any mental health worker will tell you, insane people are often meticulously logical, and even rational within the confines of their own worlds; it's just that the boundaries of their worlds don't reach out very far from their own heads."

You are talking about mental illness, not insanity. Insanity is a legal term. I do not believe that Hitler was insane. He was just evil. If he were truly insane, then he was not responsible for his actions.

[r9etb]

He initiated force against others. That's always an evil.

I agree that he was evil. The question is: how can you say it? By your definition, hunters are evil, and so are lions and chimps. They do, after all, "initiate force against others." How about armies: are they evil, too? And heck: while we're at it, why don't you give us an objective definition of force?

You can't be aware of the consequences of your actions if you are insane. That's the definition of insanity.

Well, no. As you pointed out, insanity is a legal standard, not a psychiatric one. One can, however, be "mentally deranged" (i.e., insane) in the manner of Ted Bundy, and still be totally aware of their actions.