Lemma Soft Forums

curlymonster wrote:A human who is "pure evil" in fiction is just like those "perfect" prince-charming boys that sometimes show up in unfortunate shojou series. They're unbelievable and unrealistic, often they don't make a very convincing person.

Which is why when we actually meet a truly evil person, we don't believe they're monsters. What they are and what they do is too unrealistic. Yet, truly Evil humans do exist and have existed throughout time.

Delphine LaLaurie

LaLaurie was a sadistic socialite who lived in New Orleans. Her home was a chamber of horrors. On April 10, 1834, a fire broke out in the mansion’s kitchen, and firefighters found two slaves chained to the stove. They appeared to have started the fire themselves, in order to attract attention. The firefighters were lead by other slaves to the attic, where the real surprise was. Over a dozen disfigured and maimed slaves were manacled to the walls or floors. Several had been the subjects of gruesome medical experiments. One man appeared to be part of some bizarre sex change, a woman was trapped in a small cage with her limbs broken and reset to look like a crab, and another woman with arms and legs removed, and patches of her flesh sliced off in a circular motion to resemble a caterpillar. Some had had their mouths sewn shut, and had subsequently starved to death, whilst others had their hands sewn to different parts of their bodies. Most were found dead, but some were alive and begging to be killed, to release them from the pain. LaLaurie fled before she could be bought to justice – she was never caught.

Ilse Koch

Known as The “Bitch of Buchenwald” because of her sadistic cruelty towards prisoners, Ilse Koch was married to another evil Nazi, who served in the SS, Karl Otto Koch, but outshone him in the depraved, inhumane disregard for life which was her trademark. She used her sexual prowess by wandering around the camps naked, with a whip, and if any man so much as glanced at her she would have them shot on the spot. The most infamous accusation against Ilse Koch was that she had selected inmates with interesting tattoos to be killed, so that their skins could be made into lampshades for her home. After the war she was arrested and spent time in prison on different charges, eventually hanging herself in her cell in 1967.

Shirō Ishii

Ishii was a microbiologist and the lieutenant general of Unit 731, a biological warfare unit of the Imperial Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War. He was born in the former Shibayama Village of Sanbu District in Chiba Prefecture, and studied medicine at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1932, he began his preliminary experiments in biological warfare as a secret project for the Japanese military. In 1936, Unit 731 was formed. Ishii built a huge compound — more than 150 buildings over six square kilometers — outside the city of Harbin, China.

Some of the numerous atrocities committed by Ishii, and others under his command in Unit 731, include: vivisection of living people (including pregnant women who were impregnated by the doctors), prisoners had limbs amputated and reattached to other parts of their body, some prisoners had parts of their bodies frozen and thawed to study the resulting untreated gangrene. Humans were also used as living test cases for grenades and flame throwers. Prisoners were injected with inoculations of disease, disguised as vaccinations, to study their effects. To study the effects of untreated venereal diseases, male and female prisoners were deliberately infected with syphilis and gonorrhea via rape, then studied.

Having been granted immunity by the American Occupation Authorities at the end of the war, Ishii never spent any time in jail for his crimes and died at the age of 67, of throat cancer.

Ivan IV of Russia

Ivan IV of Russia, also know as Ivan the Terrible, was the Grand Duke of Muscovy, from 1533 to 1547, and was the first ruler of Russia to assume the title of Tsar. In 1570, Ivan was under the belief that the elite of the city of Novgorod planned to defect to Poland, and led an army to stop them, on January 2. Ivan’s soldiers built walls around the perimeter of the city in order to prevent the people of the city escaping. Between 500 and 1000 people were gathered every day by the troops, then tortured and killed in front of Ivan and his son. In 1581, Ivan beat his pregnant daughter-in-law for wearing immodest clothing, causing a miscarriage. His son, also named Ivan, upon learning of this, engaged in a heated argument with his father, which resulted in Ivan striking his son in the head with his pointed staff, causing his son’s death.

Oliver Cromwell

The Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (1649–53) refers to the re-conquest of Ireland by the forces of the English Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell, during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The consequence of this conquest (in order to displace Catholic authority) was 200,000 civilian deaths from war-related famine and disease, and 50 thousand Irish being taken as slaves. Cromwell considered Catholics to be heretics so the Irish conquest was a modern day Crusade for him. The bitterness caused by the Cromwellian settlement was a powerful source of Irish nationalism from the 17th century onwards. He died in 1658, and was so hated that, in 1661, he was exhumed from the grave and given a posthumous execution – his corpse was hung in chains at Tyburn, and he was later dismembered and his remains thrown into a pit, with his head being displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall for the next twenty-four years.

Jiang Qing

Jiang Qing was the wife of Mao Tse-tung, the Communist dictator of China. Through clever maneuvering, she managed to reach the highest position of power within the communist party (short of being President). It is believed that she was the main driving force behind China’s Cultural Revolution (of which she was the deputy director). During the Cultural Revolution, much economic activity was halted, and countless ancient buildings, artifacts, antiques, books and paintings were destroyed by Red Guards. The 10 years of the Cultural Revolution also brought the education system to a virtual halt, and many intellectuals were sent to prison camps. Millions of people in China, reportedly, had their human rights annulled during the Cultural Revolution. Millions more were also forcibly displaced. Estimates of the death toll – civilians and Red Guards – from various Western and Eastern sources are about 500,000 in the true years of chaos of 1966—1969, but some estimates are as high as 3 million deaths, with 36 million being persecuted.

Pol Pot

Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer Rouge and the Prime Minister of Cambodia, from 1976 to 1979, having been de facto leader since mid-1975. During his time in power, Pol Pot imposed an extreme version of agrarian communism where all city dwellers were relocated to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effect of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions is estimated to have killed around 2 million Cambodians (approximately one third of the population). His regime achieved special notoriety for singling out all intellectuals and other “bourgeois enemies” for murder. The Khmer Rouge committed mass executions in sites known as the Killing Fields. The executed were buried in mass graves. In order to save ammunition, executions were often carried out using hammers, axe handles, spades or sharpened bamboo sticks.

Heinrich Himmler

Heinrich Himmler, the architect of the holocaust and final solution, and considered one of biggest mass murderers ever, (Josef Stalin beats him). The holocaust would not have happened if not for this man. He tried to breed a master race of Nordic appearance, the Aryan race. His plans for racial purity were ended by Hitler’s vanity in making rash military decisions rather than letting his generals make them, thus ending the war prematurely. Himmler was captured after the war. He unsuccessfully tried to negotiate with the west, and was genuinely shocked to be treated as a criminal upon capture. He committed suicide by swallowing a cyanide capsule.

Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, becoming “Führer” in 1934 until his suicide in 1945. By the end of the second world war, Hitler’s policies of territorial conquest and racial subjugation had brought death and destruction to tens of millions of people, including the genocide of some six million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust. On 30 April, 1945, after intense street-to-street combat, when Soviet troops were spotted within a block or two of the Reich Chancellory, Hitler committed suicide, shooting himself while simultaneously biting into a cyanide capsule. Hitler ranks over Himmler merely for the fact that it was in his power to prevent Himmler’s policies from being implemented.

Josef Stalin

Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’s Central Committee, from 1922 until his death, in 1953. Under Stalin’s leadership, the Ukraine suffered from a famine (Holodomor) so great it is considered by many to be an act of genocide on the part of Stalin’s government. Estimates of the number of deaths range from 2.5 million to 10 million. The famine was caused by direct political and administrative decisions. In addition to the famine, Stalin ordered purges within the Soviet Union of any person deemed to be an enemy of the state. In total, estimates of the number murdered under Stalins reign, range from 10 million to 60 million.


All of these people -- humans -- are monsters. However, none of them would have been able to do what they did on that large of of a scale if they had not gotten into positions of Power. Here's the scary part. To gain their positions of power in the first place, an awful lot of very ordinary people had to have been convinced that their ideas were Right.

A "monster" with human qualities = scarier than a monster without human qualities.

This I do believe because a 'monster' with human characteristics blends in more easily with the rest of us, making it very difficult to tell when we're sitting right next to them.

Over a thousand years ago, Aesop called them "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing."

Taleweaver wrote:I don't think one element has been addressed much so far:

If fighting the monster is an option, it's action.
If fighting the monster isn't an option, it's horror.

A variation I'm wondering about:

What if fighting is an option, but the protagonist doesn't know if he really needs to fight, and there might be a great cost to him if he does fight?

Is that more of a psychological horror than a straight-up horror? Or is it just not horror at all?

An example I'm making up right now: let's say the setup to the story is that there are a series of suspicious disappearances in one little neighborhood. The protagonist has a shaky reason to suspect that it's a particular neighbor, and thinks he might be next, but those reasons aren't enough to convince the authorities. Could be something monstrous/supernatural, could be the protagonist's imagination.

Maybe the protagonist is really in danger and needs to defend himself and the other surviving people in the neighborhood. Or maybe by doing so, he'll be murdering an innocent person and have to deal with the consequences. Horror?

BairaagiVN wrote:A variation I'm wondering about:
What if fighting is an option, but the protagonist doesn't know if he really needs to fight, and there might be a great cost to him if he does fight? Is that more of a psychological horror than a straight-up horror? Or is it just not horror at all?

As the writer of the story, YOU have to make that decision. What do you want it to be?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a) A living monster the main character can fight?
b) A spectral monster the main character can't fight?
c) A monster that's entirely imaginary and caused by madness?

Choose what you want then decide on your story's ending. Once you know your Ending, work Backwards to make it happen.

To answer your question on the type of horror; if you have graphic depictions of horrible things happening in your story, it's going to be called Horror, no matter what the story actually is.

As it is, finish the story first. That's the important part. You can figure out what to call it afterwards.

OokamiKasumi wrote:

curlymonster wrote:A human who is "pure evil" in fiction is just like those "perfect" prince-charming boys that sometimes show up in unfortunate shojou series. They're unbelievable and unrealistic, often they don't make a very convincing person.

Which is why when we actually meet a truly evil person, we don't believe they're monsters. What they are and what they do is too unrealistic. Yet, truly Evil humans do exist and have existed throughout time.

All of these people -- humans -- are monsters. However, none of them would have been able to do what they did on that large of of a scale if they had not gotten into positions of Power. Here's the scary part. To gain their positions of power in the first place, an awful lot of very ordinary people had to have been convinced that their ideas were Right.

Wow - talk about a fallacy. What curlymonster was talking about still applies - there are no "pure evil" or "truly evil" people. All those people you mentioned where human beings that did evil things - monstrous things, horrible things, but they were still human, and they still did good too. None of them started off evil. All were once children, or believed their goals were for the greater good. Some were helping orphans and distributing food while they were rounding up and murdering others. No person is a totality. THAT is what curlymonster is saying.

Describing a person as pure evil is a propaganda tool, a logical fallacy, and a justification for whatever acts you want to take stopping them. People are complicated and can't be boiled down to easy descriptors. My friend's grandparents were in the Holocaust, children trapped and on their way to a concentration camp. A Nazi soldier was moved by their crying and helped them and their parents escape. They later tried to track him down to thank him, only to discover he had personally helped kill other children and adults. Was he a monster? Did they just remind him of someone he knew? Did he have a moment of guilt or regret?

People are convinced of ideas and raise these awful people to positions of power because those awful people ARE human. They smile, laugh, tell jokes, read to children, give orphans their jackets, and brutally murder other human beings because they think they are RIGHT. Harry Truman vaporized 200,000 Japanese civilians - because he thought it was a GOOD thing to do. The greater good. Just as every person does in their life. A wise man once said, "Never mistake a person doing bad things to you as personal malice - they are merely acting on self-interest, and you got in their way."

Human "monsters" are scary for horror purposes because they are NOT pure evil. You are surrounded by people everyday, any of whom could turn out to be monstrous and "evil", though they act normal. It relies on the same body horror that makes Alien so scary - YOU can become one these human monsters. A certain event, a moral crossing done for the greater good, a mistake, the loss of a loved one. We are terrified of "evil" people for the same reason we are terrified of the sick and the dead - we know we could become one, and fear contact will spread that "infection" to ourselves.

... and in many, many cases, 'unspeakable' evil attributed to individuals is sensationalist things made up because they sound much scarier than the banal truth. The historical record suggests that Delphine LaLaurie kept, abused, and killed slaves, but most of those bizarre and horrific details were invented by people telling ghost stories a hundred years after the fact.

My favorite forgotten horror story has to do with baby farms, which are something most people know nothing about. Dozens, hundreds, thousands of babies were murdered. But I doubt the people involved cackled like banshees with the glee of evil all day long. They just didn't care. It was how they made their money. ... Which in some ways is scarier.

OokamiKasumi wrote:To answer your question on the type of horror; if you have graphic depictions of horrible things happening in your story, it's going to be called Horror, no matter what the story actually is.

As it is, finish the story first. That's the important part. You can figure out what to call it afterwards.

That part of the story is already done, actually. That's part of why I was wondering, because it seems plausible to call it horror, but the quote I was responding to made me curious.

LateWhiteRabbit wrote: ...What curlymonster was talking about still applies - there are no "pure evil" or "truly evil" people. ... No person is a totality. THAT is what curlymonster is saying.

I understand, but I'm going to have to disagree.

"...the central trait of sociopathy is a complete lack of conscience, which is very difficult for most people to get their heads around, because those of us who do have a conscience can’t really imagine what it would be like if we didn’t. Most people think that deep down everybody has a conscience, and it turns out that’s just not true."

-- Clinical psychologist and former Harvard Medical School instructor Dr. Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door

I spent 18 years of my life living with two sociopaths. I know what a monster pretending to be human looks like and acts like. Monsters often do nice things -- as camouflage to convince everyone around them that they are Harmless. It's an ACT; a Con, a Trick, a Lie, and it's Deliberate.

"Oh no, he would never do anything like that! I know him personally, and he's always been nice to me!"

Also, monsters always have a 'good' excuse for their actions. In fact, they usually state that excuse loud and clear while they're kicking you in the stomach, where the bruises won't show.

"If you would just do what I tell you, I wouldn't have to punish you!"

On the other hand, I also agree that perfectly normal, Good people CAN be driven to do evil things under extreme circumstances. Your Nazi soldier was very likely one of them. He wasn't a monster, merely trapped by his circumstances. If he didn't follow orders, he'd be shot by the officers he served. It was a matter of survival, and Survival is the most powerful human instinct we have.

Describing a person as pure evil is a propaganda tool, a logical fallacy, and a justification for whatever acts you want to take stopping them.

I have seen this in action too.
-- Acts of extreme prejudice use this as their favorite excuse. It's also been used to justify every war that's ever existed, including the current one in Iraq.

However, I know that true monsters are out there because I've dealt with them personally. They are physically human, but that's as far as it goes. They can and do act human; nice, polite, and kind: pet the puppy, kiss the child, hand out a band-aid and apologize for their loss of temper -- after kicking you in the gut repeatedly... That doesn't change the fact that it's an Act; a well-practiced set of actions designed to make you doubt what your instincts are telling you, that what you are looking at will happily kill you if given the opportunity.

A wise man once said, "Never mistake a person doing bad things to you as personal malice - they are merely acting on self-interest, and you got in their way."

I actually agree with this.
-- Human monsters rarely know the names of their victims because they are only concerned with What they are doing. Who is barely even a consideration. On the other hand, ordinary people driven to do terrible things do care about 'who' they've hurt, and their acts haunt them for the rest of their lives. These people Regret the suffering their actions caused. Monsters don't because they can't. The emotion which truly makes us Human; Compassion, is physically missing in them. Their only regret is getting caught.

Human "monsters" are scary for horror purposes because they are NOT pure evil.

I disagree.
-- It's because they sometimes ACT human that we are inclined to think that their evil actions are an aberration; an accident caused by something else. For some, this IS true. As we've both stated, ordinary people Can be driven to do terrible things. However, when it comes to monsters, evil acts are not accidents. No matter what excuse they present, they are deliberate acts done for entertainment purposes.

People ask, “What could possibly cause a normal person to torture her own child?” Well, the answer is: Nothing could cause a normal person to torture their own child. The reason that we see that happening is that there are people who don’t care, who don’t love—even their own children.

-- Clinical psychologist and former Harvard Medical School instructor Dr. Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door

You are surrounded by people everyday, any of whom could turn out to be monstrous and "evil", though they act normal.

I agree.
-- I've been there. I've seen this in full living color in my own living room for 18 years straight.

It relies on the same body horror that makes Alien so scary - YOU can become one these human monsters. A certain event, a moral crossing done for the greater good, a mistake, the loss of a loved one.

I've seen this happen too, and believe me, it is Not the same. It doesn't even look the same, even when the resulting actions are identical. These people are not monsters. They're normal people pushed one step too far. The regret they feel afterwards is palpable and plainly visible -- for years.

We are terrified of "evil" people for the same reason we are terrified of the sick and the dead - we know we could become one, and fear contact will spread that "infection" to ourselves.

I definitely agree with this.
-- Because of my up-close and personal encounters with more than one sociopath, I was terrified that I had become 'infected' myself; that I might be a monster, until one day I did a truly horrible thing. It was an accident; a traffic accident caused by the weather conditions, in fact. However, the amount of regret and remorse I still feel for having let such a thing happen to someone I care about, and it's been 4 years now, is proof to me that I am not a monster.

Monsters are out there.
-- However, not all of them commit murder. Some of them are satisfied with simply making the lives of the people around them utter living hell to the point that their victims doubt their own sanity. This doesn't make them any less a monster in my book because the reason for their actions is the same: Entertainment Value. They like hurting people. That is what makes them a monster.

papillon wrote:... and in many, many cases, 'unspeakable' evil attributed to individuals is sensationalist things made up because they sound much scarier than the banal truth. The historical record suggests that Delphine LaLaurie kept, abused, and killed slaves, but most of those bizarre and horrific details were invented by people telling ghost stories a hundred years after the fact.

Gossip... No matter how bad a fact already is, someone always wants to make it worse.

My favorite forgotten horror story has to do with baby farms, which are something most people know nothing about. Dozens, hundreds, thousands of babies were murdered. But I doubt the people involved cackled like banshees with the glee of evil all day long. They just didn't care. It was how they made their money. ... Which in some ways is scarier.

It's that they didn't care, that Compassion was entirely Absent that makes those baby farms so monstrous.

OokamiKasumi wrote:

LateWhiteRabbit wrote: ...What curlymonster was talking about still applies - there are no "pure evil" or "truly evil" people. ... No person is a totality. THAT is what curlymonster is saying.

I understand, but I'm going to have to disagree.

"...the central trait of sociopathy is a complete lack of conscience, which is very difficult for most people to get their heads around, because those of us who do have a conscience can’t really imagine what it would be like if we didn’t. Most people think that deep down everybody has a conscience, and it turns out that’s just not true."

-- Clinical psychologist and former Harvard Medical School instructor Dr. Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door

I spent 18 years of my life living with two sociopaths. I know a monster when I see it. Monsters often do nice things -- as camouflage to make you doubt what you are seeing, and monsters always have a 'good' excuse for their actions. In fact, they usually state that excuse loud and clear while they're kicking you in the head.

This seems awfully cynical. You obviously have a lot of personal history that colors your opinion, but saying sociopaths are evil monsters not deserving of being called human is very extreme, as is saying they do everything for entertainment or to "be evil". Sociopaths act in their own self-interest with no regard for empathy or social constructs. You can argue that makes them evil, but we'd be arguing the definitions of evil.

To argue that there are human beings - sociopaths - that are NOT human, and that are literal monsters, is to argue that is their innate nature and they were never anything else. So that means even as babies, as children, these "monsters" never were human. I'm not willing to call someone with absence of compassion innately evil. Sociopaths have no empathy, are socially destructive, and often act in only their own self-interest. But it is still only their actions that will determine who they are. A good example is the arms dealer Viktour Bout - a sociopath who made his living selling weapons. A destructive influence - until he discovered selling food and tents to war torn nations was more profitable. So in his own self-interest he does good in the world, even if by mistake.

You also seem to be lumping any historical "evil" person under a sociopath diagnosis, when many in fact acted quite selflessly - just in monstrous and murderous ways. I doubt Hitler read to children and played with his dog to "trick people" into anything.

OokamiKasumi wrote:

Human "monsters" are scary for horror purposes because they are NOT pure evil.

I disagree.
-- It's because they sometimes ACT human that we are inclined to think that their evil actions are an aberration; an accident caused by something else. For some, this IS true. As we've both stated, ordinary people Can be driven to do terrible things. However, when it comes to monsters, evil acts are not accidents. No matter what excuse they present, they are deliberate acts done for entertainment purposes.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Anything that is pure evil or a monster does not scare me. If such is the case, I don't need to use restraint, I don't need to feel compassion, I can fight back at full strength with no restrictions or limitations. I can kill with no remorse. This is why in the military they have always tried to demonize the enemy for the soldiers and Marines in combat - a propaganda initiative to make us see other human beings as nothing but monsters who gain entertainment from being "evil".

I fear what makes me weak. A human being with evil tendencies, with an agenda other than mine, who might be reasoned with, who might have good reasons for doing what they do, who I can see myself becoming in the very act of destroying them is what I fear. I fear an abyss that can gaze back, that can transform from within. I do not fear an abyss that only devours, only destroys, because there is no hesitation that darkness might exploit, nothing it can do but destroy me. It cannot compromise me.

Where you and I disagree, fundamentally, is that you believe a human being can be pure evil, and I don't. I only believe that humans have their own self-interests in mind, and other people can sometimes get in the way. Even a Nazi that forced children into gas chambers can sometimes be moved by tears to free a child. Even awful men like Dr. Mengele can sometimes let children have a day off to pick wildflowers.

A monster can only destroy your body - a human being can destroy your soul. I happen to find the latter much more terrifying than the former. Terror is a mirror that wears my face.

LateWhiteRabbit wrote:This seems awfully cynical. You obviously have a lot of personal history that colors your opinion...

I'm 48 years old and have lived in seven states and two countries. Yes, I speak from a lot of personal experience, and spent a lot of time studying this particular aberration for extremely personal reasons.

...but saying sociopaths are evil monsters not deserving of being called human is very extreme, as is saying they do everything for entertainment or to "be evil". Sociopaths act in their own self-interest with no regard for empathy or social constructs. You can argue that makes them evil, but we'd be arguing the definitions of evil.

You seem to think that I see Sociopath = Monster. Not True. My definition of monster is simple: One who enjoys causing pain in others, human or animal. There are sociopaths that are quite civilized and do not enjoy causing pain to others. However, those that do fall into my definition of monster are invariably, sociopaths / psychopaths, and No, they are Not what I would call human.

To argue that there are human beings - sociopaths - that are NOT human, and that are literal monsters, is to argue that is their innate nature and they were never anything else.

Correct. They were born that way.

So that means even as babies, as children, these "monsters" never were human.

Correct again.

...a growing number of psychologists believe that psychopathy, like autism, is a distinct neurological condition — one that can be identified in children as young as 5.

-- Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath?

I'm not willing to call someone with absence of compassion innately evil.

Neither am I. However, I do call those who enjoy causing pain to others, Monsters.

Sociopaths have no empathy, are socially destructive, and often act in only their own self-interest. But it is still only their actions that will determine who they are. A good example is the arms dealer Viktor Bout - a sociopath who made his living selling weapons. A destructive influence - until he discovered selling food and tents to war torn nations was more profitable. So in his own self-interest he does good in the world, even if by mistake.

Accidental goodness...? You're kidding right? Goodness needs to be deliberate to be considered goodness. Even children know that! It's not merely Actions, but MOTIVE; the reason why they took such actions that determine what they are. You said so yourself, Viktor Bout sold those tents etc... for PROFIT. Clearly, a motive of GREED cancels out any kind of goodness.

By the way, Viktor Bout was arrested in Thailand in 2008 before being extradited in 2010 to the United States to stand trial on terrorism charges after being accused of intending to smuggle arms to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to use against US forces.

Also sociopaths don't "often" act in their own self-interest, they ONLY act in their own self interest, destructive to others or not.

You also seem to be lumping any historical "evil" person under a sociopath diagnosis, when many in fact acted quite selflessly - just in monstrous and murderous ways.

Whether they were sociopathic or not does not change the fact that they ALL took massive amounts of human lives. That makes them monsters in my book. I can understand defending ones country against invaders, but "For the good of the country," does not, and will not, excuse the willful eradication of that many of their own citizens. The Mass Murder of innocent civilians is WRONG no matter what excuse it hides under.

I doubt Hitler read to children and played with his dog to "trick people" into anything.

Then you'd be wrong. Check your facts again. Those events were deliberate propaganda. The Nazi's used a lot of propaganda, negative and positive, but especially when it came to how they presented Hitler to the general public.

Anything that is pure evil or a monster does not scare me. If such is the case, I don't need to use restraint, I don't need to feel compassion, I can fight back at full strength with no restrictions or limitations. I can kill with no remorse. This is why in the military they have always tried to demonize the enemy for the soldiers and Marines in combat - a propaganda initiative to make us see other human beings as nothing but monsters who gain entertainment from being "evil".

Monsters don't scare me either because I have met the enemy and defeated them in my own home. However, I didn't have to resort to killing them, though I was ready to, if the situation called for it.

Also, I served in the military myself, and you are right, they do demonize the enemy to make it easier to kill them. However, that only lasts until one actually comes face to face with the other side and sees the same fear reflected in their eyes. That's when you realize that you've been lied to -- but you still have to shoot them or you die.

I fear what makes me weak. A human being with evil tendencies, with an agenda other than mine, who might be reasoned with, who might have good reasons for doing what they do, who I can see myself becoming in the very act of destroying them is what I fear. I fear an abyss that can gaze back, that can transform from within. I do not fear an abyss that only devours, only destroys, because there is no hesitation that darkness might exploit, nothing it can do but destroy me. It cannot compromise me.

I don't have that fear. If I must become a monster to destroy a monster that wants to kill my family, I will do it in a heartbeat. I know I will because I did have to make that choice -- before I had even graduated high school.

Where you and I disagree, fundamentally, is that you believe a human being can be pure evil, and I don't. I only believe that humans have their own self-interests in mind, and other people can sometimes get in the way. Even a Nazi that forced children into gas chambers can sometimes be moved by tears to free a child. Even awful men like Dr. Mengele can sometimes let children have a day off to pick wildflowers.

I agree, we do indeed fundamentally disagree on this point. Of course, this doesn't mean I admire you any less! LOL! It just means that on this point, we see things very differently. I can accept that.

A monster can only destroy your body - a human being can destroy your soul. I happen to find the latter much more terrifying than the former. Terror is a mirror that wears my face.

I'm not so sure about that because a monster very nearly destroyed my soul by trying very hard to convince me that I should "just give up and take it" because "there's nothing you can do to stop me," and "nobody's going to believe you anyway," because "you deserve it." Terrible things for a parent to say to a child, don't you think?

As far as I'm concerned, only a Monster would even try to destroy a soul because only a Monster would want to.