Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, but, to you, can some people also manage to channel or be ridden by directly nontoxic or subtly nontoxic entities as well?

Yes.

Okay, but 'we' were talking about 'you', before.

Ah, well, I've been talking about me and other people.

Okay. But I was not asking if 'you' get along or not.

When I respond, generally I am also exploring. Not that you are necessarily suggesting the following, but I am not 'looking up' an answer in me, but rather exploring, often, an issue and often related issues and other examples add to my exploring and responding to the questions.

I was asking what parts/portions did the 'self' not get along with?

I would view it as different parts have trouble with each other, and that even the supposes main part may actually just be a tiny part of the whole. So, this 'driver part' let's say, can have trouble with anger. So, it suppresses it. I had that pattern. Oh that's bad, not really me, shouldn't be expressed etc. Well, that's not a great experience for that part (nor for the 'driver' either, but that latter may be harder to notice).

Great.


Right, to put this in my schema, or to use one way one might apply my schema...they probably judged, consciously and/or unconsciously that X was bad.

Who are 'they' here, exactly?

The peopIe you mentioned who say they do not want to be like their parents.

And, I found that if actual examples are provided, then this works far more successfully than just an 'X' does. Unless, of course, in syllogism form.

I gave an example.

Perhaps expressing anger. They had, for example, a parent who was emotionally abusive and hurled a lot of rage at them and/or their other parent. So, they decided - using that term very broadly - that anger was bad and should not be expressed. This meant that one portion of themselves ended up being segregated (for being in essence bad). They might be slightly aware of its presence or not, in certain situations. They might have guilt and or shame connected with that emotion and that sub-personality. Energy is devoted to its suppression. Judgments of self and others are in place and ready to appear in consciousness.

There are a lot of approaches to dealing with that situation: therapies, religious practices, spiritual practices, common sense approaches, etc.

Well the irrefutable Fact that every child, in the days when this is being written, endure abuse, and every adult abuses children, talking about 'others' is not really helpful nor do things move forward and become better.

So, have you abused children as an adult?

See, not until one helps "them" 'self' to become better could they then actually be able to help, and support, another, properly and Correctly.

Sure, I beIieve we agree here at this level of abstraction.

I think most lead to an impoverished self. On the other everyone should be free to dis-identify, suppress and so on if they want to. That might be the right choice for them and the essence they are. Some of those people think that their version of dis-identification is the universally correct path. Some of those become spiritual leaders or aim in that direction.

As disconnected sub-personalities, no. Better they do not arise in the split off form again. That they are integrated as options in the whole in their no-Íonger distorted form is my goal. That they are no longer split off, held down, judged, distorted or no longer seeping out via passive aggressive or undermining the self or any of a myriad ways these portions of the self, when judged and suppressed can about out, this is my approach.

Might be the same, might not.

See, the 'my' word implies 'an owner', so who, exactly, is 'the owner', or the 'my', of the term or phrase 'my self', and 'the owner' of all of those personalities, or 'selfs', within all human bodies?

I think I have said to you before and given exampIes of how 'my' need not be ownership. I do not consider it to necessarily have that meaning it can mean that. EDIT: not it wasn't own, though it was a similar issue. It had to do with the verb 'have'.

Here: This is my friend - I do not consider them something I own. Others may well say he or she is their friend.
This is my hand - I do not consider my arm my possession or something I own. It is a facet of me.
My parents - though it is possibIe some might feeI they own their parents, the sentence does not necessariIy mean that.
My apologies for the inconvenience. - here the person is expressing feeings and acknowledging responsibility for an act.
My favorite part of the movie was the ending - I don't own that favorite part.
My pleasure to assist you.
My mistake, I misunderstood.
My sincere condolences to your family.
My respects to the late professor.
My love for travel knows no bounds.
My focus right now is on completing this project.


I don't think of owning my parts. That already has split presumed in it and a specific type of split, generally between a human and a thing or set of things. Someone and their car, for example. I do not consider what have been parts to be objects/things. Nor that I own them: Sometimes people have toxic self-relations that this could be an evocative metaphor for. They have an instrumental relations between parts with control on one side.


Because it is me in a problematic split off form. The problem is that it was abused, split off, judged and often, for example, it can take on the judgments - anger is destructive and outside of love, for example. And so a portion of the self can, when suppressed and denied actually seem to confirm the judgments when it pops out or when you try to integrate it at first.

Also, why would 'you' even want to integrate what 'you' really do not want anyway?

Because they are a part of me. Further I concluded that I did not want, for example, anger or fear, or specific kinds of these feelings because of abuse and damage. Or I thought that it was good to get rid of them. (there are many other judgments and types of judgments that can lead to these parts being split off, denied, judged and twisted by all this)

I certainly have prevention goals. But I also have treatment of damage goals. I don't think you and I have the same goal.

Which wouId need to incIude heaIing present damage.

If 'you' choose to be a raging insane deranged separate one, and show 'these ones' to others and children, then do not be at all surprised that 'these ones' continue on con others'.

Also, this could sound like 'you' just want to be a "raging lunatic", at times, without judging "your" 'self' for being one.

That's not what I meant or said.

It seems to have sounded that way to you.

I do, I think, understand what you are saying, and doing, but I am not sure that 'doing that' will be conducive to 'the world' that absolutely every one wants, and desires.

Yes, I realized that pretty soon after we met here, that you wouId beIieve that. You are more on what I wouId caII one of the disidentification paths and it seems you have a lot of judgments of integration paths. You seem to assume to know what happens when one follows them. What the end results are.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:15 am
Why do you generalize about human beings?

For the exact same fundamental reasons why you and every other human being, does.

I think actually different humans have different motives both from others who generalize and then even between instances of their own generaIizing.

My apologies. The words, 'I have not', were meant to be, 'that is'.

Fine, no worries.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really think executing "counter-revolutionaries" is identical to gassing young children because they are Jewish,?

Yes. For "counterrevolutionary" means only "person who resists Communism." Most of the Jews and most of those who died under Stalin are equally innocent victims. Both also invented false excuses -- the Nazis calling Jews "vermin" and "conspirators against the Reich," and Stalin calling them "reactionaries," "counterrevolutionaries," and "enemies of the State."

Maybe there were a few who were genuine "traitors." It would be surprising if, in any large group, there weren't a few people who were up to no good. But the sheer numbers of people they killed -- and it was vastly more by Stalin, at least 22 million -- it's not remotely reasonable to suppose that the Soviety show trials caught only or primarily criminals. Most of the people he killed were simply dissenters, kulaks, religious people, hapless peasants, or insuffciently enthusiastic Marxists. In the Soviet system, you could be accused and killed for practically any suspicion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...you understand Armageddon (apparently) as having no effect on the environment (as all wars do)...

Maybe you'd better show me where I said this.

You are too weird for me, Immanuel. You exist, think and see on a totally different plane.

Just ain't going down this road with you. Sorry to have asked!

[Immanuel Can]

...you understand Armageddon (apparently) as having no effect on the environment (as all wars do)...

Maybe you'd better show me where I said this.

Sorry to have asked!

Gratified to have made you sorry.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Gratified to have made you sorry.

[Iwannaplato]

A thread about Hitler would of course draw in Stalin and Mao as a quasi-whataboutism. As if one need be pro any of them.

A type of passive-aggressive, likely unconsciousness, apoIogism for Hitler.

[Immanuel Can]

A thread about Hitler would of course draw in Stalin and Mao as a quasi-whataboutism. As if one need be pro any of them.

A type of passive-aggressive, likely unconsciousness, apoIogism for Hitler.

Not at all. One can fully admit Hitler was wicked, and still point out that Stalin and Mao were worse. And that's the truth.

But before the Marxists can shed the spectres of Stalin and Mao themselves, they need to be able to point to at least one genuinely Communist system that has worked. Unfortunately for them, the record is uniformly awful; every Communist state, from Cuba, to Venezuela, to Zimbabwe, to Vietnam, to North Korea, to the Iron Curtain republics...all failed, all miserably, all with fatal consequences.

So Marxism's on the hook: how can it prove its own value?

[Harbal]

A thread about Hitler would of course draw in Stalin and Mao as a quasi-whataboutism. As if one need be pro any of them.

A type of passive-aggressive, likely unconsciousness, apoIogism for Hitler.

Not at all. One can fully admit Hitler was wicked, and still point out that Stalin and Mao were worse. And that's the truth.

Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to to be arguing about who was worse among Hitler, Stalin and Mao? Worse in what respect? They were all mass killers of innocent people, what's the point in ranking them? Personally, I have a particular loathing for Stalin, but most people seem to reserve a special kind of hate for Hitler, but what's to choose between them, really?

But before the Marxists can shed the spectres of Stalin and Mao themselves, they need to be able to point to at least one genuinely Communist system that has worked. Unfortunately for them, the record is uniformly awful; every Communist state, from Cuba, to Venezuela, to Zimbabwe, to Vietnam, to North Korea, to the Iron Curtain republics...all failed, all miserably, all with fatal consequences.

So Marxism's on the hook: how can it prove its own value?

Are you worried about a global Marxist revolution, or something? You seem quite desperate to demonize Marxism/communism at every opportunity. I must say, the effort you put into it seems very disproportionate to the actual threat, or maybe you know something the rest of us don't.

[Immanuel Can]

A thread about Hitler would of course draw in Stalin and Mao as a quasi-whataboutism. As if one need be pro any of them.

A type of passive-aggressive, likely unconsciousness, apoIogism for Hitler.

Not at all. One can fully admit Hitler was wicked, and still point out that Stalin and Mao were worse. And that's the truth.

Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to to be arguing about who was worse among Hitler, Stalin and Mao?

I wasn't bothering. Iwanna raised that idea. I think all three were wicked. What do you say?

They were all mass killers of innocent people, what's the point in ranking them?

I think it would make a lot of difference to the families of those between the 18 million and the 22 million, or between the 22 and the 45 million. But you can ask them, I suppose.

But before the Marxists can shed the spectres of Stalin and Mao themselves, they need to be able to point to at least one genuinely Communist system that has worked. Unfortunately for them, the record is uniformly awful; every Communist state, from Cuba, to Venezuela, to Zimbabwe, to Vietnam, to North Korea, to the Iron Curtain republics...all failed, all miserably, all with fatal consequences.

So Marxism's on the hook: how can it prove its own value?

Are you worried about a global Marxist revolution, or something?

Well, I'm not so much worried as recognizing the truth about them, in the hope that somebody else will see sense and decide not to be Marxist. That would be good.

But since Marxism is the most homicidal creed in history, by orders of magnitude, it might be a good idea if you gave it more credit for what it actually can do -- and already has done.

But if the 120 million (at minimum) dead in the last century alone by the red hand of Marxism hasn't impressed you, then I guess you can't be impressed.

Okay.

[Harbal]

Not at all. One can fully admit Hitler was wicked, and still point out that Stalin and Mao were worse. And that's the truth.

Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to to be arguing about who was worse among Hitler, Stalin and Mao?

I wasn't bothering. Iwanna raised that idea. I think all three were wicked. What do you say?

I say it is frightening how such people can get into a position of power.

They were all mass killers of innocent people, what's the point in ranking them?

I think it would make a lot of difference to the families of those between the 18 million and the 22 million, or between the 22 and the 45 million. But you can ask them, I suppose.

I don't think that's the strangest thing you've supposed, but strange, nevertheless.

Are you worried about a global Marxist revolution, or something?

Well, I'm not so much worried as recognizing the truth about them, in the hope that somebody else will see sense and decide not to be Marxist. That would be good.

Well I haven't noticed people queueing up to become Marxists, so that's a good sign.

But since Marxism is the most homicidal creed in history, by orders of magnitude, it might be a good idea if you gave it more credit for what it actually can do -- and already has done.

There you go again. Every single opportunity.

But if the 120 million (at minimum) dead in the last century alone by the red hand of Marxism hasn't impressed you, then I guess you can't be impressed.

Okay.

Why are you saying that to me? I'm not a supporter of Marxism, and I wouldn't want to live in a communist country any more than you would. Whatever I've objected to about your comments on Marxism was not a defence of Marxism, it was an effort to defend truth and honesty. You can condemn Marxism all you like as far as I'm concerned, but why must you always be so dishonest?

[Immanuel Can]

Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to to be arguing about who was worse among Hitler, Stalin and Mao?

I wasn't bothering. Iwanna raised that idea. I think all three were wicked. What do you say?

I say it is frightening how such people can get into a position of power.

Indeed. We agree.

Are you worried about a global Marxist revolution, or something?

Well, I'm not so much worried as recognizing the truth about them, in the hope that somebody else will see sense and decide not to be Marxist. That would be good.

Well I haven't noticed people queueing up to become Marxists, so that's a good sign.

Open your eyes wider. Neo-Marxism rules in many of our political parties, in our educational institutions, in the mass media...it's certainly much more influential than it will ever deserve to be.

But if the 120 million (at minimum) dead in the last century alone by the red hand of Marxism hasn't impressed you, then I guess you can't be impressed.

Okay.

Why are you saying that to me?

Only what you said: that you're not impressed by what Marxism represents as a threat. The threat they represent is illustrated with 120 million bodies. Far be it from me to tell you how to be impressed.

But I am. I think that's something to be concerned about. And I wonder why you think it's such a slight matter.

[Alexiev]

Not at all. One can fully admit Hitler was wicked, and
But since Marxism is the most homicidal creed in history, by orders of magnitude, it might be a good idea if you gave it more credit for what it actually can do -- and already has

Actually, based on percentages, God has the most homicidal record in history.

Perhaps you should switch your allegiance to Stalin, Mao, or Hitler, if the number of dead is so concerning to you.

[Harbal]

Well I haven't noticed people queueing up to become Marxists, so that's a good sign.

Open your eyes wider.

What, and become obsessive about it, like you? I don't think so.

Neo-Marxism rules in many of our political parties, in our educational institutions, in the mass media...it's certainly much more influential than it will ever deserve to be.

I told you before, I don't vote, so right wing propaganda is wasted on me.

Why are you saying that to me?

Only what you said: that you're not impressed by what Marxism represents as a threat. The threat they represent is illustrated with 120 million bodies. Far be it from me to tell you how to be impressed.

If you want to impress me, tell me something that hasn't had the IC spin applied to it.

I think that's something to be concerned about. And I wonder why you think it's such a slight matter.

The thing is; the more effort you put into demonising the Left, the more it makes me worry about the Right.

[Immanuel Can]

Not at all. One can fully admit Hitler was wicked, and
But since Marxism is the most homicidal creed in history, by orders of magnitude, it might be a good idea if you gave it more credit for what it actually can do -- and already has

Actually, based on percentages, God has the most homicidal record in history.

Actually, all death is man's fault. And that includes natural disasters, which are the effect of his fallen environment, which also would not be fallen if he weren't fallen.

But nice try on shifting the blame.

[Immanuel Can]

Well I haven't noticed people queueing up to become Marxists, so that's a good sign.

Open your eyes wider.

What, and become obsessive about it, like you? I don't think so.

Just inform yourself.

Oh, right... you said you don't like to do that.

Never mind.