Terezin ???

April 6, 2000

In a message dated 4/6/00 11:49:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

mumblecat writes:

>Should the US have remained neutral in WW II?

Well, they did for some time...

as did some other countries.

As I see it, wars are usually fought mainly

with economic interests in mind, be it

money or land.

This often goes for defenders as well as

attackers.

The idea of the "just" war is a very

tricky idea indeed.

Something a bit akin to the "perfect murder"

I suppose.

The combined

reasons for launching a war are usually

never simple, yet they often can trace

their origins to greed and / or lack.

There are always the follies and

desires of the human mind to consider

when looking at the reasons for war.

>>

Hello Amanda, Roger, et al,

l'm picking up the thread rather late in this, having missed some of

the early posts, but l find myself unable to let this one pass without

commenting. First, l agree that the vindictive, punitive actions of Britain,

France and other european countries after WW 1 helped create terrible

conditions in Germany which led to the rise of Hitler. As such, one can say

that Germany was not solely responsible for the rise of Hitler. Nevertheless,

it must be said that Germany was PRIMARILY responsible. Given post WW 1

conditons in Germany, it's understandable that they would support a strong,

militaristic leader -- even one with totalitarian inclinations -- but as we

know, Hitler proved to be more than that.

lt's also true that there have been few "just" wars, but no one could

sensibly argue that WW2 was not a just war. ln fact, l would say that WW 2

stands as proof in itself that there is such a thing as a just war. How could

one ever claim that moral grounds were lacking for attempting to bring a halt

to a fanatical regime that was intent on exterminating every Jew, gypsy, slav

and politically and otherwise undesirable being on the planet? To be sure,

the century just concluded saw other muderous despots, in record numbers. lt

is speculated that Stalin and Mao were ultimately responsible for more deaths

than Hitler. But Adolph and his nazis still stand out above all the rest in

the fanaticism of their sickness, the sheer scope of their madness, and the

fact that they were so efficient, so good at achieving their ends. And it was

a matter of contrast: the highest culture (Germany) was committing arguably

the most inhuman act of history right in the middle of europe in the 20th

century.

l'm not sure what your answer means, Amanda, in addressing the issue of

whether the US should have intervened in WW2. Yes, we got into the war a

couple years late. As everyone knows, FDR and other sensible leaders knew we

needed to get in sooner, but bird brains like Charles Lindbergh and others

exploited long held isolationist sentiments in this country in arguing and

convincing people that the war was none of our business. Of course, the

"America Firsters" crowd were also all thoroughly discredited for this

afterward. Again, l can't tell if you're actually suggesting that we

shouldn't have intervened -- but l find it hard to believe that you could

seriously believe this. l've never heard anyone with any sense say that we

shouldn't have intervened, it's so patently obvious for many reasons that

the nazis had to be stopped.

As far as looking at Adoph and saying to yourself, "Gee,

there but for the grace of God go l -- if conditions were different, maybe l

could be a Hitler too..." Well, l'm sure it's instructive to look at the

background of the world's criminals -- environment can certainly play a role.

But we have to be careful here: countries are responsible for the leaders

they produce and individuals must be held accountable for what they become.

The sufi

murshid Samuel Lewis came from a horrible family background. He described in

his memoirs how he once went to a famous psychologist with the understanding

(it was really more of a bet) that Lewis would only have to pay for the

sessions if the psychologist didn't agree that Lewis's family situation was

the absolute worst that he had ever heard of. After hearing Lewis describe

the terrible relationship his parents had, the complete hatred that existed

in his family, the psychologist agreed with Lewis and didn't charge him ( l

don't think Lewis ever got treatment). Yet Murshid Sam went on to become a

saint, beloved by all sufis, while Hitler - who probably came from a better

family situation than Lewis - became history's most infamous mass muderer.

The truth is that we don't fully know

why people become what they become. But we can recognize their actions and

the consequences thereof to innocent people.

love,

jerry

April 6, 2000

Hi Loved Ones,

I don't know if this will clarify, or if you will think I'm mad, but I

think we ALL are Hitler AND Ghandi. The difference in their behaviors

is just where they are on this journey called life on Earth. (Hilter is

an early form of Ghandi) It's my belief (and only that) that we are on

journeys of self-discovery which require that we forget our ideas of

ourselves, enter as far as we can stand (even further for some...) into

forgetfulness, darkness, evil, what ever you wish to call it. Then in

some forgotten moment that will be so profound as we witness our full

movies later, we decide to turn around and walk back to God, to

ourselves. What is the net result? Is it just a hide and seek game? I

don't think so. I think it's BEING what we only THOUGHT we could be

before. It's a new game. It's not just diversion. It is truly growth

that has not been seen before. (Perhaps I am just a dreamer, or a fool,

but I think the deeper we went, the more profound the awakening) Pol

Pot, Hitler, Stalin... They are our greatest hits. They are the

sweetest saints because they made the largest changes in self to become

Self. Just a different perspective... from somewhere around midpoint in

the journey back. I say forgive it all because you ARE it all.

Analysis is fun, but loving it is worthwhile. (sorry I sound preachy.

I mean to sound peachy)

Love, Mark

GCWein1111 wrote:

> In a message dated 4/6/00 11:49:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> mumblecat writes:

>

> >Should the US have remained neutral in WW II?

>

> Well, they did for some time...

> as did some other countries.

>

> As I see it, wars are usually fought mainly

> with economic interests in mind, be it

> money or land.

> This often goes for defenders as well as

> attackers.

> The idea of the "just" war is a very

> tricky idea indeed.

> Something a bit akin to the "perfect murder"

> I suppose.

> The combined

> reasons for launching a war are usually

> never simple, yet they often can trace

> their origins to greed and / or lack.

> There are always the follies and

> desires of the human mind to consider

> when looking at the reasons for war.

> >>

>

> Hello Amanda, Roger, et al,

> l'm picking up the thread rather late in this, having missed

> some of

> the early posts, but l find myself unable to let this one pass

> without

> commenting. First, l agree that the vindictive, punitive actions of

> Britain,

> France and other european countries after WW 1 helped create terrible

> conditions in Germany which led to the rise of Hitler. As such, one

> can say

> that Germany was not solely responsible for the rise of Hitler.

> Nevertheless,

> it must be said that Germany was PRIMARILY responsible. Given post WW

> 1

> conditons in Germany, it's understandable that they would support a

> strong,

> militaristic leader -- even one with totalitarian inclinations -- but

> as we

> know, Hitler proved to be more than that.

>

> lt's also true that there have been few "just" wars, but no one could

> sensibly argue that WW2 was not a just war. ln fact, l would say that

> WW 2

> stands as proof in itself that there is such a thing as a just war.

> How could

> one ever claim that moral grounds were lacking for attempting to bring

> a halt

> to a fanatical regime that was intent on exterminating every Jew,

> gypsy, slav

> and politically and otherwise undesirable being on the planet? To be

> sure,

> the century just concluded saw other muderous despots, in record

> numbers. lt

> is speculated that Stalin and Mao were ultimately responsible for more

> deaths

> than Hitler. But Adolph and his nazis still stand out above all the

> rest in

> the fanaticism of their sickness, the sheer scope of their madness,

> and the

> fact that they were so efficient, so good at achieving their ends. And

> it was

> a matter of contrast: the highest culture (Germany) was committing

> arguably

> the most inhuman act of history right in the middle of europe in the

> 20th

> century.

>

> l'm not sure what your answer means, Amanda, in addressing the

> issue of

> whether the US should have intervened in WW2. Yes, we got into the war

> a

> couple years late. As everyone knows, FDR and other sensible leaders

> knew we

> needed to get in sooner, but bird brains like Charles Lindbergh and

> others

> exploited long held isolationist sentiments in this country in arguing

> and

> convincing people that the war was none of our business. Of course,

> the

> "America Firsters" crowd were also all thoroughly discredited for this

>

> afterward. Again, l can't tell if you're actually suggesting that we

> shouldn't have intervened -- but l find it hard to believe that you

> could

> seriously believe this. l've never heard anyone with any sense say

> that we

> shouldn't have intervened, it's so patently obvious for many reasons

> that

> the nazis had to be stopped.

>

> As far as looking at Adoph and saying to yourself,

> "Gee,

> there but for the grace of God go l -- if conditions were different,

> maybe l

> could be a Hitler too..." Well, l'm sure it's instructive to look

> at the

> background of the world's criminals -- environment can certainly play

> a role.

> But we have to be careful here: countries are responsible for the

> leaders

> they produce and individuals must be held accountable for what they

> become.

>

> The sufi

> murshid Samuel Lewis came from a horrible family background. He

> described in

> his memoirs how he once went to a famous psychologist with the

> understanding

> (it was really more of a bet) that Lewis would only have to pay for

> the

> sessions if the psychologist didn't agree that Lewis's family

> situation was

> the absolute worst that he had ever heard of. After hearing Lewis

> describe

> the terrible relationship his parents had, the complete hatred that

> existed

> in his family, the psychologist agreed with Lewis and didn't charge

> him ( l

> don't think Lewis ever got treatment). Yet Murshid Sam went on to

> become a

> saint, beloved by all sufis, while Hitler - who probably came from a

> better

> family situation than Lewis - became history's most infamous mass

> muderer.

>

> The truth is that we don't

> fully know

> why people become what they become. But we can recognize their actions

> and

> the consequences thereof to innocent people.

>

> love,

> jerry

>

> -----

>

> -----

> //

>

> All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

> perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

> subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

> different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the

> nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always

> Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart

> to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the

> Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It

> Self. Welcome all to a.

>

> To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

> www., and select the User Center link

> from the menu bar

> on the left. This menu will also let you change

> your subscription

> between digest and normal mode.

>

April 6, 2000

Mark W. Otter wrote:

<snip> we ALL are Hitler AND Ghandi.

This bit is clear, the rest is quite mad.

love, andrew

April 6, 2000

of course... It's in time.

Love, Mark

andrew macnab wrote:

> Mark W. Otter wrote:

>

> <snip> we ALL are Hitler AND Ghandi.

>

> This bit is clear, the rest is quite mad.

>

> love, andrew