Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Sartre] Where's the Evidence?

Expand Messages
  • John Foster
    ... who ... it ... John; This is the same sort of paranoic thinking that the Nazi s propagandized in their ideological fear mongering. One of Rosenbergs
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > Jud:
      > Simply that if the suggestion made by Eisenman is correct and the "Saul"
      > invited Vespasian to destroy the Jews in Jerusalem was Paul himself, then
      > is quite chilling rather like him being a Christian version of Adolf
      > Eichman?

      This is the same sort of paranoic thinking that the Nazi's propagandized in
      their ideological fear mongering. One of Rosenbergs' beliefs was that the
      Jews were responsible for the cruxifiction of Christ: therefore all Jews
      should be expelled and killed too, according to the kind of statements in
      "Mein Kampf", etc.

      You are simply perpetrating more hate statements here because you are
      promoting hate for an identifiable group that is not dedicated to violence
      in any form....Prove that Paul hurt a single hair on any one's head with

      > John:
      > Eichmann In Jerusalem is a very interesting book by Hiedeggers most famous
      > student, Hannah Arendt.
      > Jud:
      > Infamous student - more like it. You know as well as I do that she was his
      > lover and what was the second commandment again? Go on remind me?


      Another hateful statement. Hannah Arendt is and still is highly respected
      for her mind. She is an exceptional philosopher. She was not Heideggers'
      lover, but Heidegger was her mentor. I don't know where you get the belief
      that they were sleeping together and that Heidegger was unchaste. Another of
      your 'untruths'...again where is the evidence?

      Here is Hannah Arendt's professional bio in short:

      "Ph.D from University of Heidelberg. Taught at U. of California, Columbia,
      Princeton, and Wesleyan, University of Chicago (Political Philosophy and New
      School of Social Research). Books include Origins of Totalitarianism, The
      Human Condition, Between Past and Future, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on
      the Banality of Evil.

      > John:
      > Eichmann was not a Christian at all. . . so don't imply that he was,
      > Jud:
      > I never suggested that he was - I was referring to the fact that if the
      > suggestion made by Eisenman is correct and the "Saul" who invited
      > to destroy the Jews in Jerusalem was Paul himself, then it is quite
      > rather like him being a Christian version of Adolf Eichman? I am merely
      > reporting the existence of a book which makes the claim/supposition that
      > Saul/Paul was a quisling and Roman agent. If you get hold of the book you
      > can read it for yourself.

      What has this theory got to do with the facts? You said earlier that he was
      quilty by proxy, now you are making a different assertion here based on some
      'crackpot' theory that you have apparently dug up from the 'hate
      literature'....Then you say something to the effect that you are merely
      reporting a 'crackpot' theory, and trying to relieve yourself of being a
      believer in this 'suggestion' that Paul of Tarsus is also a man named Saul?

      > John:
      > nor that all of Europe, the Irish and so on were practicing Christians.
      > Jud
      > I didn't say anything at all about the Christian West being made up of all
      > 'practicing' Christians, you are twisting my words and adding new ones
      > didn't appear in my original text.


      Again you appear to be not standing by your statements regarding the history
      of Christianity in Europe. you are said that all Christian nations in Europe
      (and therefore all citizens) because there was intolerance, suffering, and
      murder, that Christianity is at fault. Now you are qualifying your
      > John:
      > It states clearly in the commandments: though shalt not kill, so how do
      > make the inference that Christians are into killing as a habit? What you
      > mean to say perhaps is that some persons who live under Christian laws and
      > kill are atheists not keeping the commandments.
      > Jud:
      > No, I don't mean to say that at all. I was referring to the two Christian
      > sects Catholics and Protestants who are murdering each other in N.

      That is a very uncritical statement. Were catholic priests killing
      Protestant clergymen? Were practicing Christians killing other practicing
      Christians before they attended mass?. Those who live by the sword, often
      die by the sword. There is nothing in the teachings of Christ instructing
      believers to obtain any amount of revenge possible for almost 'trivial
      transgressions'. Christ and his disciples lived with petty theives, etc.,
      but they certaintly did not assent to and encourage murder. In fact the
      opposite of that was practiced: love the neighbour as thy self.

      > John:
      > So what proof do you have that Christ or any other prophet advised killing
      > people? Where in the Jerusalem bible does it say that it is okay to slay
      > people?
      > Jud:
      > It doesn't need to spell it out. The 'role-model' angels of the Lord were
      > cruel beasts.

      Angels are 'messengers' from the Greek <angelekos>, and there are many
      angels: prepositions are angels, and so are many other entities. You are
      taking a strictly literalist interpretation and leaving out the 'symbolic'
      in everything. There was one fallen angel apparently whose name was Lucifer,
      but this angel is a very important pyschic counterpart to the 'unconscious'
      as C. Jung would have said. Lucifer is not the personification of evil as
      some think, but rather something more. He is the 'temptor' or free will in
      that he represents 'feeling' and 'intuition' when it is different than what
      is 'preferred' by the conscious rational mind. Angels you have to know are
      'messengers'.....Even God who created the universe and the earth also
      created on Monday, the binarius, the devil. This personification is valid
      since the binarius indicates 'dualism' and to have a dual value response to
      things of value is conflict engendering, and a source of anxiety.

      > The modern notion of God's angels being serene, peaceful,
      > human-like or innocent, rosy-cheeked childlike cherubs is a thoroughly
      > misleading image, we must return to the dispatching tens of thousands of
      > to their deaths. In the book of Genesis, for example, we read of the
      > of God who sent to Earth to destroy the evil city of Sodom: . "And the
      > 'men' [the two angels] said unto Lot: "We will destroy this pace [Sodom).
      > The outcry of the people has waxen great before the kc of the LORD, and
      > LORD hath sent us to destroy it. "

      Reminds me of the destruction of the NSDP, the Stalinist forces, etc., in
      our times. Angels are as I have said 'messengers' and as such they can
      represent psychic, and unconscious forces, and they can represent forces in
      nature. When there is a great 'evil' in the land, it becomes intuitive that
      there is evil present. Sodom represented a profane society that worshipped
      Baal, a kind of false icon representing slavery to the flesh...I think it is
      a representation of a 'subculture' similar to heroin and cocaine addiction
      today. Most of the most serious crimes in the US are drug related....

      > Afterwards, the LORD (Yahweh-Elohim)
      > rained down brimstone fire out of Heaven, and Sodom was indeed destroyed,
      > along with the cities of the plain. All of the inhabitants were killed.
      > Later in the Bible, in the second book of Kings, we read how the agents of
      > Yahweh once again brought death to a vast number of people: "And it came
      > pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and put to death in
      > the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and eighty five thousand men. So
      > for the idea of sweet, smiling, rosy-faced cherubs.

      Indeed, God does indeed become wrathful at times. But this wrath is purely
      an anthropomorphic term. The wrath of God is nothing similar compared to the
      wrath of men. These two types of wrath are completely different. The wrath
      of God is an experience unlike any other. This wrath is identical to the
      fear <tremendum. that is felt when watching "The Birds", and all of us have
      felt this wrath at times. To feel the 'wrath of God' is to feel the fear of
      death present. I have felt this fear several times in my life and it changed
      me. Alfred Hitchcocks, "The Birds", is such a good movie that I cannot help
      to say it again. If you want to experience the wrath of God, then this fear
      that is felt watching this movie is for you....It is not like the fear of
      pain or anything like that but it is the fear of annihilation of the self,
      which is different. To annihilate the city of Sodom symbolized the
      annihilation of the selfish, addictive drives that form bad habits that lead
      to death. A sort of reverse form of symbolism since that is what the addict
      feels is happening if they do have to convert to a new habit of health.

      > Jud:
      > Again - you twist my words - I never accused him of 'WAR CRIMES' but of
      > reporting Jews to the nazis. There are books which deal with his
      > behaviour - but all references were lost in my last wipe- out.

      I already told you what happened. He was doing nothing any different than
      the Canadian government nor the US government did when they interned the
      Japanese during WW2. These people did not all speak Japanese but they did
      lose their possessions. Fortunately they were not murdered. Up to the time
      that Heidegger was the Recktor of Frieburg he was doing nothing different
      than what the US and Canadian governments did to the Japanese here,
      assisting in their relocation and dispossession of rights. But you have
      twisted the truth around to make it sound that Heidegger hated Jews,
      collaborated fully with the SS and so on to remove the Jews he knew and have
      them placed into ovens and murdered. On the one hand you are saying that
      Heidegger was having an affair with Hannah Arendt, a Jew, on the other that
      he was assisting in their genocide knowingly. Edmund Husserl was Jewish, and
      he was Heideggers' best friend and mentor until 1936.

      > Jud:
      > Does that mean that Heidegger had no option? No, he could have resigned
      > taken a job as something else.

      Yes. He did resign as Recktor shortly after he was appointed to the
      position. There are some correspondence existing that Heidegger resigned
      because he was not happy being involved in expelling of Jews from
      universities, after all Arendt and Husserl are Jewish, right? I have some
      references that indicate that he was asked to resign by the superiors more
      sympathetic to the Nazi's. He was deeply hurt by what happened to some of
      the brightest students. Anway these Jewish students and professors were
      actually quite lucky because they left Germany before it was too late.

      > If you read the German newspapers of the
      > period that Heidegger was a Nazi and the crude anti-Jewish propaganda of
      > period, it was quite obvious that heidegger and the German people knew
      > quite well what they were voting for when they put their cross against
      > name of the Nazi candidate.

      Anti Jewish sentiment in Germany has existed since about the mid-1900's. You
      can see in the relationship between Wagner and Nietzsche how strained and
      finally how impossible the relationship was after Nietzsche discovered how
      anti-semitic Wagner was....The anti-semitic hatred in Germany still exists,
      but the fact was that Hitler himself was part Jewish. His grandmother gave
      birth to an illegitimate child who became his mother. This is the reason why
      Hitler destroyed the town of his birth, and why he asked his lawyer to find
      out the truth from going through all the records available about his

      This form of genocide is referred to as 'fraticide' since the Jewish German
      is a German speaking person that is ultimately related by blood to everyone
      else. So by anti-semitic ideology we have the first mass fratricide in the
      history of mankind. Killing of ones' own people is called fratricide.
      Everyone in Germany at the turn of the century was related (Jews and
      Christians were all consanquines, affines). So when the NSDP killed and
      removed the Jewish Germans suddenly the average person saw a large segment
      of their own friends and neighbours dissappear: doctors, gardeners,
      teachers, etc.
      > John:
      > The quote from Leviticus is interesting because if you read more here you
      > will find a very fair sense of justice that is very unique for the time.
      > instance these laws are one of the first cases of universal human rights
      > declarations. Compare the Code of Hammarabi. The person that steals from
      > rich person is to be punished much more severely than a person that robs a
      > poor person. In fact all the laws regarding crime against persons are
      > essentially based on 'equal treatment of equal cases. '
      > Jud:
      > But the women hadn't committed any 'crime' other than giving birth to a
      > child.

      > Jud:
      > I find those examples very upsetting John. There are many such examples
      > innocent people being framed by the British police - you may be aware of
      > them. That doesn't excuse the Jews from penalising a woman with two weeks
      > exclusion from society if she had a male child and four weeks if she had
      > female - why did God penalise women this way through his 'holy' laws?
      > address the question of the unfair sentencing between a male baby and a
      > female.


      There may be a reason for this practice just as there is a reason for not
      eating pork. The forbidding of the eating of the animals with cloven hoofs
      is that the pig carries trichinosis. In sheep and goats these animals cause

      My quess is that after a woman gives live birth that she continues to bleed
      from the uterus as it contracts for up to 3 weeks or a month. This puts the
      young mother into the risk of purpurial fever and of other forms of disease
      that may be transmitted to others. But I think that even today it is
      recommended that women rest for one month after natural childbirth, and
      restrict access and exposure of the baby to other people while his or her
      immune system recovers.

      There is obviously a medical reason for the seculsion. Babies eyes are very
      sensitive to direct sunlight as is their skin, and it is not recommended
      that they be exposed to direct sunlight (caucasions) for up to six months.
      They often do not have any hair on their heads for this time anyway. Mine
      was born with almost two inches of darm brown hair because the mother is
      Peruvian descent.

      > Jud:
      > Again you twist my words. I said he rang the police and had them picked
      up -
      > he didn't actually drive them away himself or push them in the ovens
      > personally.

      This is absolutely false. He assisted in expelling Jews from the University
      of Frieburg long before there were any concentration camps; he did not phone
      up police and watch the police cart the Jews off to the ovens. If you can
      come with evidence then show me it.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.