[R.M. Schultz]That Axis History Forum Guy Again...

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-14 10:46am

I came across that bloke from Axis History Forum earlier on today and I had a heated argument with him about homosexuality, a few months back, where he told me that the homosexual Alan Turin was punished for what "he did" rather for what he was. Well he came up with this corker in the Axis History Forum thread found here:

R.M. Schultz wrote: Before you even begin to think about this, throw out all notions of “Gay” and “Straight” because these are mere Bourgeois proprieties that will only complicate the issue. The current agitprop of the “Gay Community” would have us believe that “Gay” is something innate (like blue eyes) when in fact it is more a matter that ranges from disposition (like left-handedness) to circumstance and experience (like a taste for curry) that becomes a matter of mere preference.

The real matter at issue here is dominance, a matter of “Top” and “Bottom.” About 15 to 20% of persons are naturally dominant, while only one in twenty is an actual leader. A person’s sexuality is fixed in inverse proportion to their dominance. Thus, a passive personality type is likely to conceive of themselves as being “born” gay or straight, as this is a matter of disposition and they will lack the will to chose their sexuality. Conversely, a dominant type is more likely to put on and take off sexual roles as the situation demands, a matter of preference. In heterosexual relationships the Top role ordinarily falls to the male (since even between matched men and women the man enjoys a certain natural aggressiveness that gives him enough of an edge to hold this role) and if it does not, then the relationship usually becomes dysfunctional in some way. In homosexual relationships, if there is a naturally dominant person, then he takes that role, if there is a difference in the power relationship (age, size, social position) then this might influence who takes this role, and if there is no natural dominance then there is usually a tacit agreement to alternate this role (the role of Top being undesirable if you are naturally passive). As Tops are out-numbered by Bottoms by about five-to-one, a Top can pretty much write his own ticket in the Gay world.

What do you think of this comment that this individual has said? Is he talking sense, or is talking total BS? And since when is being left-handed merely a "disposition"?

I always got the impression that most homosexuals were born gay anyway and their orientation is often not down to pure choice (although some people growing up in certain single-sex enviroments seem to "turn" gay - like in youth prisons or boarding schools).

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-14 12:50pm

The current agitprop of the “Gay Community” would have us believe that “Gay” is something innate (like blue eyes) when in fact it is more a matter that ranges from disposition (like left-handedness) to circumstance and experience (like a taste for curry) that becomes a matter of mere preference.

Scientists determined back in the early 1920s that homosexuality was innate. Yes, it's indeed like left-handedness, not like blue eyes - you could practically write with a right hand (and a homosexual can practically fuck the opposite sex), but why the fuck should you do it? About "matter of taste", "circumstance", however, I believe he's just spouting bullshit. Of course, in an unrepressed culture where all choices are given, there's more chance that someone will "become" homosexual, but it doesn't mean that he made some sort of choice due to circumstance - it's just that the relaxed rules of the society let him, finally, write with his fucking left hand.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-14 12:52pm

I don't see why his claims require any answer at all, since he provides no evidence to substantiate them in the first place.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2006-09-14 01:21pm

It takes someone that is completely ignorant of scientific research of GLBT individuals for the last 20 years to make such a comment. Not only does he lack evidence, the scientific evidence all point to biological determinant for sexual orientation (hormonal differences and brain structures). But of course he assumes that innateness automatically implies a direct genetic cause and since there is no "gay gene", homosexuality must be a preference.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-14 02:57pm

And R.M. Schultz's bullshit continues:

R.M. Schultz wrote: I think my analogy holds. Whereas people have an innate disposition for both handedness and sexuality, these things do respond to conscious training and intention. My father, a lefty, was taught to shoot right handed in the Marine Corps and became completely proficient that way. Röhm functioned perfectly well as an heterosexual before the Great War and an Homosexual afterwards. It has become common to the point of cliché that nowadays so many college lesbians straighten up after graduation that there is a slag tearm for it: L.U.G., “lesbian until graduation.”

I think Germany relaxed considerably during the times of the Weimar Republic and somebody like Rohm could finally lead a gay life with no real reprisals from the society at large (which was falling apart at the time). And he doesn't understand what being a bisexual means.

Why does Axis History Forum let morons like him to sprout out his hypocrisy and intolerance?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-14 03:07pm

I'm anything but dominant in bed, but in other aspects of life I'm a natural leader, and often end up in leadership positions even when I don't want to.

He posts suppositions, rich with rhetorical flourish, as fact, and deserves heapings of contempt for it.

He sure spends a lot of time thinking about homosexuality, doesn't he?

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-14 03:32pm

Frank Hipper wrote: He sure spends a lot of time thinking about homosexuality, doesn't he?

Oddly enough in his younger years he claimed that he had homosexual relationships, but "grew out of it", married and has become a devout Catholic in his 50s. Also on the Axis History Forum he thought that Franklin D. Roosevelt and his cabinet during WWII were supposedly "brilliant", "highly competent" and "uncorrupted".

Worse still he played down the incident of Alan Turin committing suicide due to wrongful legal prosecution by claiming that Alan Turin was rightly condemened, while at the same time he scolded the Nazi regime for evicting Jewish scientists like Albert Einstein. While both incidents of talent being wasted due to bigoted policies were both wrong, he accused me of being a so-called "moral relativist" when I defended Alan Turin and condemned England's defunct anti-homosexual laws.

And for the cherry on top of the pile crap, he claimed that the Jews were deported to the camps purely due to "genetic" reasons while homosexuals were interned for their "actions". R.M. Schultz is a cocklicking fuckwit if you think about it.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2006-09-14 04:05pm

Big Orange wrote:Oddly enough in his younger years he claimed that he had homosexual relationships, but "grew out of it", married and has become a devout Catholic in his 50s.

Yes, well sexual orientation is not always rigid or fluid and he makes the all too familiar mistake of assuming that his experience is similar to everyone else who is identifies as gay, lesbian or bisexual. But the reality is that the vast majority of gays (at least for males) stay gay for the rest of their lives.

You know, you could just ask for evidence for his claims. That's all it takes to make his argument come crashing down.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-14 04:16pm

But why he is he displaying such blatant double standards? Anyway R.M. Schultz never listens to reason, waving off any compelling evidence of "innate" homosexiality as "junk science" and such. And while he condemns the Nazi regime (his only positive character trait), he ignores the very bad policies of the US Government like the imprisonment of the Japanese and colour segregation laws. And he claimed that Alan Turin was convicted for breaking legal anti-sodomy laws and that incident could not be compared to Albert Einstein being discriminated against because he was Jewish.

All in all, R.M. Schultz is a rather smug, very narrow minded fellow with a head like a pile of bricks.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-14 04:33pm

Accuse him of trolling, purposely and irrationally disrupting the forum for no good reason.

If he had evidence, he'd have good reason.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-14 05:09pm

I had a lengthy PM duel with him and the stupid prat would not listen to simple logic: how is being Jewish supposedly a genetic trait? Isn't that much more to do with culture and religion, rather than actual biology?

Doesn't that mean that R.M. Schultz partially believes in the part of Nazi ideology that defined Jewish people as a seperate "race" from the German "Aryans" (even though he ignores the millennia of intermarriage and conversions)?

And he smeared for saying "libertarian nonsense" when I insinuated that the US Government is/was in some ways just as corrupt and malignant as the Nazi regime (even though the US Government is democratic and the Nazi regime was obviously not). Don't get me wrong the Nazis were certainly evil and they intended to murder tens of millions of people for merely existing or getting in their way, but what about the Native American displacement, black slavery and the many decades of waging international war that has continued to this day?

Although to be fair, the US Government eventually abolished slavery and America wages war due to it being a global power reacting to severe international pressure (ie. the Cold War and the so-called War on Terror).

Either way, R.M. Schultz actually seems to fully believe all the BS wartime propaganda, both Allied and Axis.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-09-14 06:17pm

No one's claiming that sexuality is completely rigid, but why waste a fuckton of time and energy forcing yourself to be straight? There are practical reasons to do so when talking about handedness, but for sexuality? It's damn stupid.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-14 06:39pm

Well R.M. Schultz is not a logical guy who sees history or other things in a logical and objective manner. And of course he's a hypocritical, self-loathing bisexual who sees homosexuality as "wrong".

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-09-15 02:56am

In these arguments, I typically go. Ok, so if we assume it's not innate "natural," so what?

I find it more entertaining to assume his premise and still not give a shit ethically. The best way to defeat it, in my opinion, is to do that, if the "normal vs abnormal, natural vs unnatural, innate vs choice" line of reasoning inevitably leads to some normative conclusion he's pushing.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-15 03:07am

Why do even waste any time on this worthless piece of shit? "Being Jewish is a genetic trait"? Full of it, he is.

Don't get me wrong the Nazis were certainly evil and they intended to murder tens of millions of people for merely existing or getting in their way, but what about the Native American displacement, black slavery and the many decades of waging international war that has continued to this day?

Minor correction. Nazis intended to murder hundreds of millions... of us. It was essential - at least for us Russkies - stop them. But slavery and slave trade certainly holds a very high position on the shitlist. Native American genocide was so complete and utter that it's still remembered up to this day. How could it be that a genocide which was more efficient than the Holocaust in terms of killing an ethnicity (the "final" solution of the Native indian question was far more "final" than anything the Nazis could achieve) is so easily dismissed?

And he claimed that Alan Turin was convicted for breaking legal anti-sodomy laws

"Legal anti-sodomy laws"? His legalist bullshit is stinking to high heavens. Since when did legalism become a valid moral philosophy, anyway?

Why does Axis History Forum let morons like him to sprout out his hypocrisy and intolerance?

Because the Axis History Forum, as many other english-speaking history forums, has a very relaxed rule, and accomodateds zillions of pseudohistorians, conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers, as well as general hate group members. Strictness of rules seems to be looked at like "persecution". I don't even post at such places, merely skim. The idiocy is burning. Especially hard-hitting the AHF is it's sheer concentration of Neo-Nazis.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-15 04:57am

Stas Bush wrote: "Legal anti-sodomy laws"? His legalist bullshit is stinking to high heavens. Since when did legalism become a valid moral philosophy, anyway?

Here is how the conversation panned on Axis History Forum. This is what I said initially:

I wrote: And I don't think the Nazis were the only ones who partially ruined scientific progress through petty bigotry; in England when Alan Turin (a brilliant mathematical genius) was convicted of being a homosexual (another widely despised minority group) the British government did nothing to protect Mr. Turin who did a great service to his country and was a valuable scientific asset.

And this what the fool said in return:

[quote="That "R.M. Schultz" Twat"]
Here you are comparing apples to oranges. It is completely disingenuous to equate Jews and homosexuals as “despised minority groups” since Jewishness is genetic and sodomy is a behavior. Alan Turing was punished for what he did while the Jewish victims of Nazism were persecuted for who they were and the moral difference between these is simply incalculable. Furthermore, Turing was convicted in a court of law after due process under laws passed by democratic methods, while the Nazi’s overturned the rule of law completely. However misguided the prosecution of Turing might have been, regulation of behavior is well within the purview of state power in a democratically elected government. Comparing prosecutions under laws that now seem quaint and out of date (yet were enacted democratically) to genocide verges on moral bankruptcy.[/quote]

And of course the entire thread rapidly degenerated from there and I realised what a joke R.M. Schultz was.

And as for the rest of Axis History Forum: I don't think it's a very bad historical forum and there are pleanty of good people who are trying to contend with all the Neo-Nazis and Third Reich apologists infesting the joint. And there are many "BANNED" titles beneath many an avatar, so that means the moderators there are doing something about those idiots.

And while R.M. Schultz is obviously a hypocrite and a fool, he is not a Neo-Nazi: he seems more misguided, rather than evil. And ironically I found another guy on Axis History Forum who was once in the Waffen-SS(!) to be a more open minded and wiser poster than R.M. Schultz...

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-15 05:05am

Comparing prosecutions under laws that now seem quaint and out of date (yet were enacted democratically) to genocide verges on moral bankruptcy.

Fucking idiot. He didn't even grasp the fact that you didn't equate genocide with persecution, you merely remarked on how similar gay-banishing policies were implemented to harm people in Britain.

Moreover, his remarks on "prosecutions under out-of-date laws are not genocide" show that he's a retarded legalist, just as I thought him to be. Genocide in olden times was done with full accordance to the law. As was slavery - a fine example of what "prosecutions under out-of-date laws" really mean. As was persecution of homosexuals, etc, etc.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-15 05:47am

Well I think his "while the Nazi’s overturned the rule of law completely" comment was a real killer. Hello? Hello?! What about the Nurumberg Laws? And the SS camp guards being bounded by internal laws as well? And the small thing of the Nazi Party being voted into power?! And the Nazi German troops mostly following the Geneva Convention on the Western Front?

But of course the madman accused me of "making excuses for the Nazis"...

And while Britain's defunct anti-sodomy laws were democratically enacted, so were the Deep South's Jim Crow Laws (as far as I know). I mentioned that to him as well and that too fell on deaf ears.

And I also think his "Jewishness is genetic and sodomy is a behavior" remark is incredibly ignorant and very bigoted. With anti-Jewish racism, he totally ignores the many centuries of political, economic and religious baggage that accumulated with the Jews in Europe and he wrongly assumes the Nazis hated the Jews on purely pseudoscientific grounds. And he is also merely concentrating on the act of gay sex itself (sodomy) and not on gay people in general - in my teenaged years I knew a gay friend who seemed homosexual long before his mid to late teens, which indicated that he was essentially born a homosexual.

Why is R.M. Schultz such a dim asshat?

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2006-09-15 11:00am

Because he's not very bright, but convinced he's right on the 'because I said so' platform. A vast majority of really obnoxious people who hold ludicrous views do so because they are unwilling to change their opinion, and to lazy to research the facts before making them.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-15 12:14pm

Although I dislike R.M. Schultz for his hypocrisy and wildly out of date views on human sexuality, he's typically bullshitter in other areas as well and is a very self righteous pro-American to the point of mouth foaming by posting this on the Axis History Forum:

R.M. Schultz wrote: In 1941 the top executives of the US government consisted of:

Great Leaders:
Franklin Roosevelt.
Henry Wallace

Extraordinarily Capable Leaders:
Henry Morganthau
Robert H. Jackson
Harold Ickes
Francis Perkins

Very Capable Leaders:
Henry Stimpson
Frank Knox
Cordel Hull

Capable Leaders:
Claude Wickard

Less Than Capable Leaders:
Jesse Jones

Please compare this to the Reichleitung of the Third Reich and I feel my point will be made.

Is R.M. Schultz talking sense here about the US Government during WWII, or is he sprouting out nonsense? Is it sound historical fact or merely war propaganda wank about the American leadership? I know this looks silly, but if I see R.M. Schultz as the idiot that he is when it comes to basic human rights, then I don't put much stock into his opinions about WWII history.

I mean he doesn't provide any compelling evidence why Franklin D. Roosevelt was supposedly a "great leader" (in some ways he struck me as an out touch guy trying to bargain with Stalin) or why a pretty anonymous functionary like Harold Ickes was allegedly "extraordinarily capable". As an historian, R.M. Schultz does not strike me as very objective or level headed and he has a mind seemingly still in the 19th century when it comes to minority groups.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-15 02:01pm

Wow... most of what he said is just "wank wank wank US 1941 administration".

Why do you even waste your time on the guy?

I mean he doesn't provide any compelling evidence why Franklin D. Roosevelt was supposedly a "great leader" (in some ways he struck me as an out touch guy trying to bargain with Stalin)

1) I'm not sure Roosevelt is a "great leader", but he's not an inept or silly politician, and certainly one of the better U.S. presidents for all I know. He was the one who brought U.S. out of the Great Depression, and he was the one who made it ascend to superpower, by intervening into the war. The opposite side of it was the strengthening of U.S. interventionism. Nevertheless, Roosevelt, especially from the U.S. perspective, did much good for the country.
2) Roosevelt did not "bargain" with Stalin, in fact, Stalin was playing the tune in the summits for the latter course of the war. Roosevelt held with much decency during those talks.
3) Roosevelt did a decent thing for our country once, so he shall not be forgotten. He was our ally during the war and almost never let us down or tried to pull out silly scaremonger stunts like Truman did. So perhaps my Russkie perspective is a bit skewed, but Roosevelt was also a decent ally.

I don't know if FDR is a "Great Leader", but he's a worthy president. Of course, if you see U.S. involvement in WWII as a positive thing.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-15 03:59pm

Stas Bush wrote:Wow... most of what he said is just "wank wank wank US 1941 administration". Why do you even waste your time on the guy?

Yes, maybe I'm paying this ridiculous pinhead more attention than he deserves. And while Roosevelt does not seem to be a truly incompetent leader, I still get the impression that this R.M. Schultz guy is vastly overrating the capabilities of the wartime US administration and is merely doing lots of American wanking with no real substance to back facts up.

I get the impression that Roosevelt found himself to be in an excellent position - he was seperated by the Atlantic ocean, he found that the Soviet Union and British Empire could take the brunt of Adolf Hitler while he funded them both. He was a cynical opportunist, even though his policies led to good things and was one of the biggest main reasons why Adolf Hitler was thwarted.

But either way, R.M. Schultz seems to be a smug, silly waste of space who is ejaculating over WWII and perhaps I shouldn't waste my time with the loony (or Axis History Forum in general - it's full of cranks).

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-16 07:33am

Hmmm, here is what R.M. Schultz is saying, regarding the persecution of homosexuals:

R.M. Schultz wrote:
I never stated that Turin was “justifiably” convicted, nor have I ever “down played” the suffering of homosexuals durring the Holocaust. I find both of these things to be morally abhorrent, barbaric in fact. My point was not that these persecutions were justified, but rather that the degree of moral offense at punishing people for what they do (i.e. sodomy) is considerably less than for punishing them for who they are (e.g. Jews, Gypsies). Sodomites, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Communists (and, for that matter, in the Soviet Union, Kulaks) were always free to “straighten up” and change their behavior, while even becoming a Catholic nun was not enough to save Edith Stein.

Like I said before, R.M. Schultz seems to be more silly and deluded rather than a true hate monger. But he does seem to be back peddling here and is still morally inconsistant - he is playing down the suffering of homosexuals by implying the Nazis were "re-educating" them in the camps, while the killing of Jews was worse because the Nazi state even killed people who were born Jewish that had converted to other religions (with Edith Stein being a good example).

And he still wrongly thinks homosexuality is purely defined by sexual acts (sodomy) and ignores the other facets of sexual orientation. And R.M. Schultz still insinuate that Alan Turin was justifiably convicted, if he mentioned in another post that he was convicted in a court of law that was democratically sanctioned. Is he still talking bullshit here?

Post by **Kuja** » 2006-09-16 07:42pm

Why the hell do you keep bolding his name? Do you have some kind of fascination with this guy?

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-17 04:13am

Kuja wrote:Why the hell do you keep bolding his name? Do you have some kind of fascination with this guy?

Huh? That's how I address everyone here Kuja, although your right in thinking that I'm wasting time with this dolt.