Sieg Heil to the King, Baby - Inappropriate Obsessions

Post Reply New Topic

it's the same logic as to why people get the "insanity" wrap in court... cause they aren't fit to be held to justice and suffer punishment for the things they cannot understand/discern.

not that i believe in god... but why would he not allow someone like this into heaven?

yes, i understand the viewpoint as well... i just don't subscribe to ideals of religious heaven/hells... but believe they are viable, given the individual and how adamant they are to adhering to their beliefs... no matter how deranged... cause it's intrinsic only to themselves and not an imposed value system (unless they willingly impose it on themselves, thus fueling the creation of the cause/effect to happen in their afterlife). on the same side of the coin, i don't think people who are lackadaisical about their religion will experience their heaven either... which is what all religions generally tend to endorse.

but as i mentioned, the same logic condones all religions which to me is most parsimonious philosophy (it saddens me that religions effectively damn all other religions/nonreligions to hell) and this is the main crux of these ideals that I focus on. I just also play my own devil's advocate and acknowledge that by the same logic, i could admissibly acknowledge the same peace to these few extreme examples of humanity.

i don't want to offend ppl, so i'll leave it at that...i don't usually bring up the topic for this reason.

I'm not religious and i don't really care about heaven or hell the way religion define it but i know the difference between good and bad to be much more objective and definable than most scientists would like to admit
matter of fact i believe morality to be much more objective than science and one of the reasons scientists tend to suck so bad(no offense) is that they imagine themselves to be above such matters as the difference between good and bad
Nazism in many ways was a religion because it imposed totality(that why insecure ppl were and are so drawn to it) and if all u care about is logic i guess it is safe to assume that Hitler went to that religion heaven
I, like most sane people feels and think that there is some difference that can even proved scientifically between good and bad and that difference could be translated to heaven and hell
in this life or the next

personally i think and feel no topic to be offensive

I was obsessed with the penis, at the age of 7, and I talked about that organ a lot. My sister and I, would talk about the penis, all the time.

I was obsessed with being skinny, at the age of 9. When relatives, teachers and psychologists asked me what I wanted to be, when I grew up, I'd tell them that I wanted to be skinny, when I grew up. Most kids want to grow up to be athletes, teachers or doctors. I wanted to grow up, to be skinny. The thing was, that even at the age of 9, I had the XL/XXL frame, identical to that of Mick Avory, so that wouldn't be possible.

Sick heil hole topic

I have studied genocides, political mass murders and eliminationism for close to forty three years and because I detest human worship and group identity as much as I do I could never admire any political/religious regime that practiced it, includng (but not limited to) nazism, stalinsim, khmer rougism or any other extremeist politics that deny the rights of individuals and who could seek to eliminate dissenters.

That being said, how do I accept that some people have the right to worship hitler, stalin, pol pot or other genocidiers? Briefly, I do because individuals can harbour extreme views as long as those views do not become government policy. Forturnately, in western democracy, this has not occured, and with safeguards in place, they will not.

nara44 wrote:

Can I ask you how you know this?

Do you mean objective and definable in human terms?

Even in that case....I would strongly disagree.

You find Hitler fascinating could it be his scientists created part of you?

My "inappropriate obsessions" are dark mythologies (one time I prayed Hypnos and Thanatos), totalitarism (a bit more stalinism than nazism) and firearms (Mauser C96 FTW !).
Someone with I correspond by e-mails (about shorts stories and novels we write) affectuously called me "huge geek about military stuff and massive arm destruction" one time !

I have been fascinated, I guess you could say obsessed, with all things
related to WW-II and the third reich since I was a child. I had countless
models of WW-II era planes, tanks, ships, etc....when I was a kid. I've
watched every show on the History channel (and elsewhere) about
WW-II, the third reich, Hilter, the holocaust, etc....

I've read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" more times
than I can count.

Nonetheless....I despise nazism and all that it stood for.

I just think the whole period was the most fascinating and dramatic one
in human history. I also think that the holocaust and the overall barbarism
and sadism displayed by the nazis said something very final about many
things within the human condition. IMO....those things would include the
overestimated value of "civilization" and the Christian religion, a belief in
an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god in general, the "banality of evil"
the danger of irrational beliefs of any kind, etc.....

Like another poster said.....the nazis would've "killed me twice" for being
jewish ( an atheistic "jew" to be clear) and for having significant mental/
neurological disorders.


I used to constantly compare the allied weapons to the German ones and
the fact the German ones were generally superior was actually a source of
constant frustration for me.

I tried to deny this....I tried to grasp at straws to prove allied
weapons were generally at least on equal footing with those
of the Germans, but I finally relented.

-The Mark V panther tank was probably the best all-around tank of WW-II.

The U.S. Pershing and the British Centurion were contenders, but
they came too late in the war to play a significant role. The 90mm
gun on the Pershing was actually less accurate and less powerful (in terms
of armour pentration abilities at least) than the KwK 42 75mm on the
panther. The HVAP shells the Americans developed for the 90mm probably
did have superior armour-pentrating abilities to those used for the panther
gun, but these shells were in short supply. The Americans also developed
a longer-barrel version (and far more powerful) of the 90mm and this was
placed on two pershing tanks which made it into the European theatre
before the end of hostilites. But again.... all these tanks/guns came too little
too late to make things easier on American armoured forces whose MBT, the
M-4 Sherman, was a coffin on tracks in the eyes of the allied and german troops
alike.

The much-vaunted JS-II tanks the Soviets fielded in 1944 did have thicker
armour than both the Panther and the Tiger-I. But the massive 122mm
was a low-velocity weapon compared to the German 75mm and 88mm
and thus it's AP capabilities were probably equal at best to those of the
main guns on the Panther and Tiger-I. Furthermore, the gun was less
accurate and Soviet firing optics were markedly inferior to those of
Germans. The gun also had a slower rate of fire because the shell and
cartridge case of the 122mm ammunition had to be loaded seperately.
The tank could only carry 28 round's worth of the 122mm ammunition
too. The smaller 75mm and 88mm rounds in the German tanks allowed
for nearly four times that many rounds.

All these factors gave the JS-II tank distinct disadvantages on the
battlefield against the german Panthers and Tigers. And even the
JS-II was grossly out-gunned and under-armoured in comparison
to the German "King Tiger" and the Jagdtiger tank destroyer. Though
it must be admitted that the famous russian T-34 tank directly inspired
the design of both the Panther and indirectly, the King Tiger.

-The hand-held German anti-tank weapons like the Panzerfaust and
Panzerschreck were vastly superior in their armor-pentrating capacity
than the American and British counterparts (the Bazooka and the Piat
respectively.)


-The German MG-42 was probably the best light machine gun of WW-II
with a higher rate of fire (1200-1500 RPM) than any other machine gun
of the time. It was arguably the German weapon allied troops feared the
most. It has influenced the design of many contemporary machine guns
including the American M-60 and Belgain MAG.

-German small arms in general were probably the best in the world. The Luger
pistol was arguably the finest side arm of the war. The German StG 44 was the
world's first assault rifle and regardless of what Mikail Kalashhnikov always
claimed to the contrary, it inspired the design of his infamous AK-47.

-German WW-II fighter planes were qualitatively superior to allied
ones. This is debatable only if we aren't including the German JETS
which appeared late in the war. The allies had nothing in service
which could compare to the ME-262 jet. But this aircraft came
too late in the war to have any real impact. Even the German
piston-driven fighters like the FW-190 and ME-109 had some
advantages over the best allied fighters like the US P-51 Mustang
and British Spitfire. For example, the FW-109 was more durable
and better-armed than the P-51. It was nearly as fast and probably
equally agile, if not even more so.

-The Germans also had great advantages in gun optics, infra-red, submarine
and missile technology, etc.....

This is not to mention German training, tactics, communications, logistics,
etc....which always at least kept pace with the allies until late in the war.

The allies had some advantages in artillery, surface naval vessels, radar
and of course, the race to develope the atom bomb.

But overall....German weapons systems were far superior to those of any allied
power (and other Axis powers.) The Germans just had the midas touch when it
came to almost anything having to do with warfare and most allied personal
who took part in the war would probably admit it.

The way I see it....only three major factors decided the war in allied favor.

1.) Overwhelming allied quantative superiority in men, material, natural resources, supplies and weapons.

2.) Hitler's (and those of other nazi big-wigs like Goering) incessant strategic
blunders from the Battle of Britain onward.

3.) Allied code-breaking, deception and espionage skills.


I actually think #2 was the most decisive factor of all. The Germans still had
great advantages in 1942 when the three major allied powers (Russia, Great
Britain and the USA) were all in the war. Hitler foolishly threw away these
advantages in North Africa, the Mediterranean and Stalingrad/southern Russia.

If the man can be thanked for nothing else, perhaps we can thank him
for his megalomania and amateurish meddling in the professional strategies
of his generals.

Last edited by Horus on 20 May 2010, 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have a 7 year old son who is very interested in WWII but its more the planes and weapons....although he is pretty well educated on Hitler for a 7 year old. My brother was always obsessed with the civil war...he is now a history teacher .
I dont know if its inappropriate, actually Ive seen lots of people here say they have the same interest, but I tend to be interested in serial murderers....Im repulsed by what they did but I always want read about it or watch documentaries. Maybe its the shock factor or that Its something I cant wrap my brain around...how someone could take another persons life or do such heinous things to another person.

The Sherman and T-34 were superior to all Axis tanks apart from, perhaps, the Panzer IV.

You need to appreciate that a super-spiffy 88-toting, heavy-armoured Tiger or Konigstiger that's broken down, run out of fuel or had the s**t blown out of it by a fighter-bomber (i.e. the perennial condition of any German heavy tank) is not a good tank. It is a spectacularly bad tank. It has taken lots of time, manpower and resources to design, build, supply and fuel it and they have been wasted because the tank they produced was not fit for the need. We're fortunate that the Nazis were so pig-ignorant when it came to appraising the real value of their over-engineered, over-complicated technological trash.

They did have some good instruction manuals, mind.

I heard it was because he was severely abused as a child. I'll obsess over what I want to obsess over and anyone who tells me otherwise can go jump in a lake.

Vivecestion and animal testing are speicial intrests of mine...so I know a little about what the Nazi scientists did to people. What irks me is why it when those things were done on people it was horrible but it's okay to do on animals. I guess PETA and ALF could be considered inappropiate for a special intrest but as I said previously, I don't care what other people think.

I do appreciate those factors when it comes to the Tiger-I and Tiger-II.

That's why I didn't claim either was the best all-around tank in WW-II.


The panther was comparably more mobile and reliable than the tigers though.

It wasn't the perfect tank in those terms, but neither were the M-4 or the T-34.



This is from Lt. Belton Y. Cooper's book "Death Traps"

Cooper served as a member of the 3rd armored division's maintenance battalion
from D-day until the end of the war:

"Before the Normandy invasion, some U.S. armored commanders assumed
that because the Sherman was lighter than the Panther, it would also be more
mobile. This assumption was incorrect. The key to a tank's off-road mobility
is its ground bearing pressure: how the weight of the tank is distributed over
the ground. Because the panther had a wider track than the Sherman, it actually
had a lower ground bearing pressure and could go places where the Sherman
could not. More importantly, the narrow track on the Sherman could not
negotiate muddy terrain and snow".

Earlier models of the panther had problems because the engine and
transmission were overstressed by the weight of the tank. Cooling was
also inadequate, the engines often caught fire and the wheel rims gave
some trouble. But all these faults were mostly corrected on later models
of the tank though the bogies still often froze up when clogged with
snow during the brutal russian winters. Maintaining the panthers was
also difficult too since the outer wheels had to be removed to access
the inner ones.

Still...the Germans managed to produce 5000 of them and if they would've
concentrated on the panther and on the Pz IV, they probably could've produced
many more. The design was actually simplified to ease production after 1943. The
US Army believed it took five shermans to knock out one panther.

The T-34 probably fared better than both the panther and the sherman in overall
mobility. But the transmissions were bad and the russians often had an extra one
strapped to the back of the tank. In terms of firepower, armour, optics,
ergonomics/crew comfort, communications, etc....the panther was far
superior to the T-34.

Also ...the suspension in the panther allowed for a much more stable gun platform than the T-34. The panther didn't bounce around when firing nearly as
much as the T-34. The diesel engine of the T-34 also gave it some mobility advantages over the panther's gasoline engine, but diesel gives off alot of black smoke thus making the T-34 a more visible target. All in all.....i'd say the panther was superior to either allied tank. Especially if we're talking about the Ausf G model which appeared in mid-1944. Most of the panther's defects were corrected in that model. Now if you really want to
talk about the world-beating tanks in WW-II, let's talk about the Japanese and Italian
ones


So now it's time for battleship comparisons.


The Japanese Yamato-class battleships vs. the U.S. Iowa-class.

I'm going with the Iowa-class overall in spite of the Yamato's bigger guns
and heavier armour.

Any disagreements?

you really are jumping way ahead of yourself...

a) you don't even have to turn to the sciences to read tons of material discussing objectivity of morality/religion... it's called philosophy and in case you weren't aware, there are many differing views on objective values... which in and of it self disputes a CLEAR SINGLE set of objectivity. but hey, i applaud anyone finding a set that works for them.

b)to say scientists find themselves above this sort of thing is ignorant and malicious... suggesting your own incongruities with the various objectives systems out there. and it belies your own strife over the matter... i dare say by your tone my words DID offend you.

c) i guess most sane people are inconsistent... you say morality is way more objectionable than science... so then how can it be scientifically proven? plus even you allude that more than logic is necessary to discern why Hitler in fact, would not go to heaven...you seem conflicted and mislead about what science is/does.

d) i never said hitler would go to your heaven, so why aren't you worried about the trespassing of every other soul out there that is not of your denomination?... cause clearly having a different set of objective morals/religion is a clear and objective offense for going to (your) hell.

No need for applause just please don't tell me how i feel,it's annoying(one of the most common mistake people do on the net is tone based judgment which in case of AS it's a double mistake),I'm not offended,i have some views on the matter and i tried to express them ,English not being my language and coming from a country were people are very direct in addition to the well known AS in your face altitude i might sound pissed of when I'm not/

a) Having so much material and point of views on the objectivity of morality doesn't in any way proves that such objectivity doesn't exist,
on the contrary,the fact of so many ppl through the ages passionately trying to get there,even willing to sacrifice their lives and the life of others testify to the authenticity and necessity of the sentiment,all our establishments,inventions,art,science etc... are nothing but a glorious failures on the road to an objective set of rules/

b) Ok, i do think science would be much better if it would learn how to incorporate value system data(good and bad) into the seemingly objective methods it used .for instance,at your field of expertise adding a psychological layer to the biological can make science more objective because it integrate the so called more subjective matters.now days u can see more labs going this way which means scientists begin to understand that a proper science must take into account the wrongly called subjective value systems,the old scientist was saying "don't talk to me about feeling I'm doing science" and i think and say he was wrong and i'm very happy to see more and more scientists wake up to see the error in this altitude.
BTW
Scientists are known to serve just anyone without asking too many question and that not just bad in morality terms it's also leads to very bad science though it doesn't look like it in the shorter terms and i think that AS as a minority are also victims of this kind of so called "objective" science which eventually would turn out to be the most subjective one/



c) a good science could and a good science is looking for consistency,
are u saying that scientists are mad ?
i'm not conflicted on the matter of Hitler going to heaven,he is going to hell,no doubt about that,
The subject interest me as an investigation to the root of evil,why it's appealing to so many ppl,it's manifestations, and such...


d) clearly u understood nothing of what i wrote,could be my fault,
an "objective" heaven could never be my heaven,the "sky" is not part of my "denomination"', i don't have any,never practiced any religion.
But Hitler did,
He had a strong faith that he imposed forcibly on as many ppl as he could
so he is going to hell
I, on the other hand have a very strong faith which i imposed on nobody(important part of my "religion" is the "not imposing" thingy)
i look for knowledge ,not power,i need to know not to own,so would never consider heaven in territorial terms
there is no such think as "my heaven",because the term "my" turns heaven into is hell the same way Hitler needs to turn the world into "my" world ended up in an all out homicidal orgy

so using the term "trespassing" is the result of the old and bad scientific attitude who see and understand only heartless logic which inevitably turns anything into nonsense,
the true logic is the logic of the heart and i have no doubt that science would get there some day ,in spite of itself,as the last resort.

How could u strongly disagree before u even heard my terms ?
Is that mean u don't believe such value system exists or even worthy of existence, debate or discussion?
Well,all we human are doing since the beginning? of time is looking for such a system,
Do u really want to reject humanity up front ?

Hopefully the two of you only talked about it I know I'm so wrong/bad
I was obsessed with porn like 7/8 years ago till I got burnt-out on it & then I got obsessed with a girl I knew online till things fell apart & I had a mental breakdown after. Then I got obsessed with researching mental stuff till I got a job & I became obsessed with working. Now that I'm unemployed I'm obsessed with the offensive comedy music. It's probably not the most appropriate obsession I mentioned but it is enjoyable unlike some of the others & the music has not caused me any problems so for except for annoying people by talking about it It may be very inappropriate but I could do much worse