Date sent: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT)

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Roger: This is getting unwieldy. I'm breaking into parts

>>> Explain who among the poor has been more cruel than Stalin, Hitler.

>> a) These particular people and their moments in history fall into the "community under stress" catagory. (see ruthless leaders)

> Please, Roger; these men were selfish narcissists, they created the worst of the stress.

These people did not create stress, they lead it.

I see, and how do you say that it was less stressful in Germany and Russia during the 30's than the 40's? they look just as poor after the war as before, and the Germans after a few years of prosperity were back in dumps. The US came through the depression and 40's better off without mass murder. FDR was as amitious as Stalin and Hitler, but not evil; why did the Germans support Hitler? Because evil is always battling with good (man has two natures) you look at the fruit of his works and you can tell which side is winning. The Germans were ready for the lies, and he was ready to provide them, but he was not alone, he had many wealthy educated supporters -- the money and learnin' didn't help, in fact they used it to help Hitler, evil had the edge for a while is the only answer. Not prosperity v non-prosperity.

And this why I asked if we are talking about the real people, or the symbols.

what symbols have I mentioned?

Selfish, narcisists, paranoids.... whatever. These people were put into power by communities that felt it was time to use extreme measures. They were put into power, they did not "take" power.

they were conned by many educated wealthy men.

If you mean they didn't use violence from day one, i agree; if you mean manipulation and touch of violence (creating riots, diseminating self-serving lies isn't "taking" power) ... ok they got elected though trickery and a promise to do violence to innocents rather than "taking it".

After they were given power, they used that power to do terrible things. But, if these people had not been put into power, if the community had chosen more moderately and conservatively, we would not have these spectacular mass killings to talk about. Blame the communities --

exactly my point, that is communal sin just as you saw it in the movie w/satan cruising the background approving.

>> b) ....We have to be clear: are we talking about Hitler, Stalin, etc., the symbols, or the real people?

> The real people: do you doubt that they were willing mass murderers? That they supported, willingly, torture including mass starvation?

Once again, I don't think the real people woke up in the morning thinking, "What a fine day to do evil." They woke up in the morning thinking, "It's a bad world I live in, and I have some ends to accomplish to make it better."

Better for "me" they thought, the regulars joes were cannon fodder. think! how was this better for 10-15% of the subjects they arbitrarily killed? and those who were killed so they could remain the 1st among equals? I haved trouble seeing the beneficence of their acts.

Keep in mind that these communities were surrounded with violence and chaos at the time

(induced by who? the commies and nazis in very large part.)

these ruthless leaders came to power. Russia, for instance, formally started fighting in 1914, but didn't stop fighting in 1918. They continued fighting a Civil War clear through the 1920-22 time frame, at least. Stalin killed millions, but millions had died before he came to power, and the country was still hemorrhaging.

He killed more by an order of magnatude than died in WWI, He killed many more than died from civil war and enemy war combined.

Do I personally think these leaders made good choices? NO! Do I think the communities that put these people into power made good choices? No... but I'm not so sure about that. I wasn't living through their crisis.

It was a great choice for the few, the powerful (those that survived the revolutions need to eat its ambitious, or good-hearted, children along with the dispensible peasantry.)

Do you have to have lived there and then to see they were evil? Bad guys doing bad things to keep and increase their power. How about Sadam, you live today.

A contemporary stress situation that I am living through -- that I know the answers to -- is the stress of the 9-11 Disaster. I'm watching Bush do a toned down example of a Hitler-style concentration camp at Guantanimo. The prisioners there are being kept outside the legal system. Is this right? NO!

Roger, your out of your depth here, Bush... Hitler...? whose coolaid you drinkin? He has with Congress eroded our rights, along with the courts; very upsetting to me and my ilk, but the detainees are not citizens of the US. If Bush is violating Geneva that's one thing, but these guys are POW's being treated well. they aren't like u and me: arrested for a crime. Bush is not my favorite, but please, terrorists are not criminals they are combatants.

Is the Patriot Act right? NO! If the community doesn't believe that Rule of Law can work well in times of stress, if Rule of Law is seen as only working in "good times", then we need to be doing a lot better educating of our citizens. Rule of Law is especially important to follow during times of stress.

Here we agree as to the PatAct, moreover, we agree it is very bad that we have been eroding the 4th Amendment so "drug war" can be fought, the current US Supreme Court doesn't care about the 4th because everyone can be rehabilitated from their social diseases, we don't need the 4th since we have "restorative justice". (not)

But don't confuse rights of accused with rights of POW's. We're not, thankfully, that global yet. Sovereignty is a good thing

>> c) For the majority of cruelty and injustice in the world, think of the collection of soldiers that were Jesus' torturers. ... a day-to-day basis was a lot more fulfilling?

don't get this

> Ah, so technology is the route away from cruelty? On-line action and cubby holes would have reduced the cruelty of Roman guards and jackboot stalinists and ss?

No, you miss the point. It's not technology, it's comfort and fulfulment. Let these Roman guards become violin makers, sales people, politicians... any of the thousands of productive roles a person in a prosperous society can fill. But, yes, having those diverse productive roles will make being a "jackboot" look unattractive.

Oh really, I haven't noticed al quada's money pacifying them or slowing their teaching of hate in the mid-east schools where many aspire to jackboot (high-energy, little-thought jobs, just as in US schools, they don't all want to be lawyers doctors or even teachers and salesmen... many like work work. Roger, not everyone wants to educate themselves, many prefer to follow. (remember the movie, "Deer Hunter", "What do you want? -- I want to play softball, drink beer, work at the plant and raise kids." Only a few like to think.)

> I can't agree, some people like cruelty, not all the Romans in the Passion were cruel.

As I said, it's a matter of scale. There are still sadists in our world, but they have less community support in a prosperous, diverse society.

See above, plus: Prosperity is relative, many are happy to have peaceful Pro-Lifers dragged away and charged under RICO while they write briefs supporting gay marriage, pornography for kids. Tyranny and totalitarianism are as alive today as it was in Rome or Reign of Terror (the froggies first promise of amoral utopia -- Paris Commune and 1st citizen stuff). Cruely has a long and strong current; money nor education stop it -- Totalitarians' buddies were very very smart and educated,. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and Bin Laden's. they also had/have power and money (or good things) why did/do they after consolidating power move to genoicide?

> But it doesn't: mass murder has increased in the twentieth century,

Mass murder is only one form of cruel and unjust action. It's a spectacular, but minor, form compared to, say, spouse beating and child abuse.

Again your drinking NOW's coolaide, do some fact checking before you say something like that. Only ignorami think child abuse and wife beating are equal to mass murder (how far off shore are you? do you think wife beating causes birth defects? one in four women are raped?)

And I'm not sure it has increased in the 20th century. Do you have access to accurate statistics?

sure, but stop and briefly think: there weren't 30 million Russians for the Mongels to kill. There are as many indians in the USA today as there were when Columbus arrived, Rome never killed milliions of anything in a a couple decades.

fact check: I had a chance to check on two movie things: the mopping of the blood of a special person was a jewish tradition (artistic, they used white clothes as are used in the catholic mass to serve and clean the wine and bread containers)

Simon carried the cross the whole way, JC barely made it, (bible and secular Roman historians) artistic: the sharing of the load between Jesus and Simon. Fact: at least one Roman at the foot of the cross, and Simon, converted after the execution.

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36