Session 11 June 2011

[weasel3d]

Thanks Anart!

 

[Laura]

Hi weasel3d, I don't think there is any question at all that it's a priority to eat grass-fed meat if at all possible. This has been discussed at length in the various diet threads here on the forum. Factory farmed animals are not only riddled with diseases of different sorts, but eating that meat promotes the almost unimaginable suffering of those animals. Whenever possible eat organic, and grass fed meat. You can search the forum for 'grass fed meat' and see the data collected regarding the quality of fats available versus the lack of such in feed lot animals.

Yeah. That's one of the no-brainers that we don't need to ask...

 

[Don Genaro]

They actually volunteered that info earlier this year in the February session:

Q: (Perceval) Is it possible for us to get all of our nutrients from animals without taking supplements?

A: It would be better if they were "wild fed" but you are able to figure this out.

 

[reborn]

Aloha, All!

Regarding Gandhi, I happened to come across this recently:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234012-Alex-Jones-Mike-Adams-and-the-9-11-Litmus-Test

Les Visible
Reflections in a Petri Dish
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:03 CDT

[...]

My good friend Roy and I were in Uberlingen at the lake this weekend. I like to get away with Roy, when I can, to have conversation. Roy is from India and a native of that land. For some reason we can sit and talk for hours and it's all good. Roy is a very bright fellow of spiritual inclination. He's also very well read and honest as the day is long. He told me a story this weekend, which was distressing to me to say the least. His father was a soldier and his father told him the tale. I spoke about it on the radio show this Sunday night.

Roy told me that Gandhi was not at all as he is made out to be and that he actually wanted the British to stay and worked to that end and that it was Chandra Ghosh who drove them out, even though they didn't actually leave, they just went underground and behind the scenes. I haven't researched this and have no idea of how true it is. As with all things, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle but actually, at right angles to everything else.

I mention this because it is possible that all of our assumptions concerning everyone are wrong...

fwiw :)
Renee

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Aloha, All!

Regarding Gandhi, I happened to come across this recently:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234012-Alex-Jones-Mike-Adams-and-the-9-11-Litmus-Test

Les Visible
Reflections in a Petri Dish
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:03 CDT

[...]

My good friend Roy and I were in Uberlingen at the lake this weekend. I like to get away with Roy, when I can, to have conversation. Roy is from India and a native of that land. For some reason we can sit and talk for hours and it's all good. Roy is a very bright fellow of spiritual inclination. He's also very well read and honest as the day is long. He told me a story this weekend, which was distressing to me to say the least. His father was a soldier and his father told him the tale. I spoke about it on the radio show this Sunday night.

Roy told me that Gandhi was not at all as he is made out to be and that he actually wanted the British to stay and worked to that end and that it was Chandra Ghosh who drove them out, even though they didn't actually leave, they just went underground and behind the scenes. I haven't researched this and have no idea of how true it is. As with all things, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle but actually, at right angles to everything else.

I mention this because it is possible that all of our assumptions concerning everyone are wrong...

fwiw :)
Renee

All this MAY be true, but seriously, I could just as easily write: "I've got a friend, Bob, he's really smart and is from the States. He says JFK was actually a real jerk who wanted to stay in Vietnam. I haven't verified what he's saying, though, just throwing it out there."

 

[reborn]

All this MAY be true, but seriously, I could just as easily write: "I've got a friend, Bob, he's really smart and is from the States. He says JFK was actually a real jerk who wanted to stay in Vietnam. I haven't verified what he's saying, though, just throwing it out there."

Aloha, Approaching Infinity!

Yes, I see that. I realize that this could just be hear-say. At any rate, I thought that within the given context, it could be plausible and thought it might be worth putting it out there.

If nothing else, I think it's a good reminder to seek the truth in all matters and to not have any "sacred cows" (pun intended ;D ) about anyone, including Gandhi.

In the interest of truth :)
Renee

 

[Eva]

Q: (L) Well that makes me think of something. Reading all of these analyses about the Odyssey, it's almost like the Odyssey is an epic story that describes a world similar to our own. When Odysseus comes back to his home, he finds it occupied by these psychopathic, consuming, partying, drunken, rude, obnoxious people. He himself comes into his own as a stranger, a beggar, is treated like dirt, insulted, things are thrown at him... Basically, that's kind of like what our world is doing today. The poor are being oppressed. It's like the whole global elite is acting the part of these suitors in the Odyssey, and Odysseus is everybody else in a certain sense. Just reading this story, it's like apocalyptic. People start behaving that way and it's like they bring down destruction on their own heads. Am I kind of on to something here?

A: Yes. And it is a good exercise for your forum because it will convey many truths at a deep level.

This helped me understand a situation that was left without a closure in my mind since last year.
Last night I had a dream that was a schematic representation of that particular time. I wondered why I saw that and somehow I concluded that it must be some sort of explanation to help me tie whatever lose ends still remain in my mind about it, but I couldn't see how to do it. A couple of hours later I felt like reading the new transcripts, and here it is. The association is striking. I don't feel comfortable writing about it in detail so I will only share my conclusion.

If the world at large is similar to Odysseus' house as he finds it when he returns, and if at the same time our micro-worlds ie. our body-personality-Soul complex is in a way a representation of the World, then Odysseus, the wondering/exploring Soul comes back to his home/body and meets Penelope , the personality-soul who, ideally, has managed to weave and unweave her embroidery countless times to gain Time and not give in to the suitors until Odysseus' return. Weaving and destroying and weaving again, doesn't that sound a bit like breaking the lie-ligants in the brain ? (I’m referring to the bit about them in Secret History).

What sadness would that be, to be alone in a house full of marauding, anarchistic, psychopathic people/tendencies, have everyone tell you that your husband is dead- that all there is this material world, that there is no Soul and if there is, it's none of your business to aspire to it cause 'god' has it all taken care of- and in the midst of all this, what Hope you have you must bind to the intentional destruction of your day's work in order to gain time for his return. What's more, the next day you must find the strength to create a new item in full knowledge the you will have to destroy it at night.
Isn’t that similar to accumulating knowledge which, being a mixture of lies and truth then has to be deconstructed to its individual components and filtered, in hopes that your next construct will have a bit more truth in it? How many times must one repeat the process until the outcome is acceptable ? Until the debt to the universe has been payed?
Then, when Odysseus returns, no human recognizes him at first, it's only his dog that knows him. Could that be an analogy to the emotional center which is the first step toward our higher centers?

I might be completely off here, but when I take this trail of thought further I can see the suitors as transforming continuously (maybe) according to one's personality's stage of development. They may be your own tendencies or actual people that come trampling in your life and then they may also pose as your very essence. If one can somehow, through intuitive knowledge and spontaneous discipline deal with their personal tendencies and actual people, I fail to see how they could deal with the latter case without objective knowledge. And here, I include all the fields you are covering with your work. Health, psychopathy, comets, 4D implications, history. All the work you have personally done and all the work of other authors you have turned our attention to.
One year after first putting my hands on Secret History, I will repeat what I said when I first posted in this forum. Your work is a life-saver and it may be literally thrown at someone when they need it the most and are ready to stop drowning in nonsense. Of course then one must start swimming for the shore, but this time with renewed hope and aspiration to objectivity.
On another note, I understand that your question as quoted has to do with a much larger scope than the one I've used here. I think it's because I'm miles behind you and my focus is still on understanding myself, not out of choice but of necessity.

My deepest thanks for everything you share.


PS. It's only after I'd written this bit that I saw the link to the Odyssey thread. Next thing I knew, I was bashing myself for not reading the full thread before starting to write.. then I felt that there's nothing I can say that has not or will not be said better by someone else , hence I should just delete everything and simply say 'thank you'. I mean.. oh dear, I felt I wanted to share my thoughts about Odyssey and here you already have a whole thread about it. That's hilariously silly of me, so, in full knowledge that I've taken up precious space in your forum to write things that others could say and see much better than I do.. I apologize. I will read the Odyssey thread soon.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Don't bash yourself, Eva, you said it as well as anyone in this post!

 

[Roger]

Beautiful and well put Eva, deep emotional and heart rendering...it seems that it is the way of the world today...bare with it "help is on the way"

 

[Ca.]

Adolf Hitler's Medical Health
http://wikipedia.qwika.com/en2fr/Adolf_Hitler's_medical_health

Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism

In addition to being a teetotal and a non-smoker, scholars agree that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism. The vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler is thought to have been based on Richard Wagner's anti-Semitic historical theories which connected the future of Germany with vegetarianism. Hitler believed that a vegetarian diet could both alleviate his personal health problems and according to the racial policy of Nazi Germany, spiritually renew the Aryan race. In spite of these beliefs, reports state that Hitler occasionally ate meat during the 1930s. While Hitler reduced his meat consumption, he may have not eliminated it entirely, with culinary accounts indicating a sporadic preference for sausage, squab, liver dumplings, ham, and caviar. As a result, many vegetarians dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian.

Hitler's diet

Most of Adolf Hitler's biographers assert that he was a vegetarian from 1931 until his death in 1945. They believe that Hitler's diet was influenced by essays of composer Richard Wagner which promoted vegetarianism. Hitler idolized Wagner as a young adult, saying: "I don't touch meat largely because of what Wagner says on the subject." When Hitler was 22 years old and living in Vienna, he first experimented with a vegetarian diet in an attempt to cure a chronic stomach ailment. In a 1911 letter Hitler wrote: "I am pleased to be able to inform you that I already feel altogether well....It was nothing but a small stomach upset and I am trying to cure myself through a diet of fruits and vegetables." Biographers Robert Proctor and John Toland propose that Hitler may have interpreted his stomach cramps as an early sign of cancer, a disease that killed his mother Klara Hitler when he was 18. Proctor describes Hitler as "a vegetarian, of sorts" who ate meat on occasion: "Hitler was indeed, for the most part, a vegetarian — though he did occasionally allow himself a dish of meat."

There is some anecdotal evidence that Hitler continued to eat meat after his experiment with a vegetarian diet. Dione Lucas's 1964 Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook included a recipe for squab (four week-old fledgling pigeon) with a short anecdote: "I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though."

After the war Rudolf Diels (who headed the early Gestapo for a year before narrowly avoiding execution) wrote that Hitler sometimes ate Bavarian Leberknödel (liver dumplings) but only when they were prepared by his photographer friend Heinrich Hoffmann.

Historian Thomas Fuchs reports that Hitler's experiments with vegetarianism as a young adult were "far from absolute in his adherence": "In the early, frantic days of Nazi organizing, he was often too busy to sit down to a full meal. He ate on the run, gnawing chunks of sausage...in September 1931, he manifested an active loathing for meat," which followed the suicide of Geli Raubal, "the niece with whom Hitler had been in love".

Biographies by the German journalist Joachim Fest and British historian Ian Kershaw also state that Hitler almost became a vegetarian after the 1931 death of Geli Raubal, an event which is said to have left Hitler in great distress. American author and historian John Toland concurs, noting that after Raubal's death Hitler almost became a vegetarian: "...he meant it. From that moment on, she [Frau Hess] said, Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings. 'Suddenly! He ate meat before that. It is very difficult to understand or explain."

However, accounts differ as to the exact nature of Hitler's "vegetarianism". Six years after Raubal's death, Hitler was still said to be eating the occasional dish of meat, including pork and fish eggs. In a May 30, 1937 article in The New York Times entitled "Where Hitler Dreams and Plans", Otto D. Tolischus wrote: "It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar, luscious fruits, and similar titbits. He is outspoken about having a sweet tooth and loves confectionery, especially chocolates."

Hitler as a vegetarian

According to stenographic transcripts translated by Hugh Trevor-Roper of conversations between Hitler and his inner circle which took place between July 1941 and November 1944, Hitler regarded himself as a vegetarian (however, British historian Alan Bullock argues that Hitler would not allow the use of a tape recorder and that the written transcripts were edited by Bormann). According to these transcripts dated November 11, 1941 Hitler said, "One may regret living at a period when it's impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there's one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian." On January 12, 1942, he said, "The only thing of which I shall be incapable is to share the sheiks' mutton with them. I'm a vegetarian, and they must spare me from their meat."

In private conversations, Hitler often recited the benefits of eating raw vegetables, fruit, and grains, particularly for children and soldiers. In an attempt to disgust dinner guests and provoke them into shying away from meat, he reportedly told graphic stories of visits he had made to a slaughterhouse in the Ukraine. Food writer Bee Wilson notes: "It amused him to spoil carnivorous guests' appetites... As they put their forks down in disgust, he would harangue them for hypocrisy. 'That shows how cowardly people are,' he would say. 'They can't face doing certain horrible things themselves, but they enjoy the benefits without a pang of conscience.'"

In a November, 1938 article for the English magazine Homes & Gardens describing Hitler's mountain home, The Berghof, Ignatius Phayrethe wrote, "A life-long vegetarian at table, Hitler's kitchen plots are both varied and heavy in produce. Even in his meatless diet Hitler is something of a gourmet—as Sir John Simon and Anthony Eden were surprised to note when they dined with him in the Presidial Palace at Berlin. His Bavarian chef, Herr Kannenberg, contrives an imposing array of vegetarian dishes, savory and rich, pleasing to the eye as well as to the palate, and all conforming to the dietic standards which Hitler exacts."

In a diary entry dated April 26, 1942, Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a committed vegetarian, writing, "An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also. Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling."

Martin Bormann, who as head of the Party Chancellery (and private secretary to Hitler) is considered by most historians to have been the second most powerful Nazi official in Germany, built Hitler a large greenhouse at Berchtesgaden in order to keep him supplied with fresh fruit and vegetables throughout the war. Personal photographs of Bormann's children tending the greenhouse survive, and by 2005 its foundations were among the only ruins associated with the Nazi leadership still visible in the area.

Finally, in his personal life Hitler showed anti-meat tendencies. Hitler disapproved of cosmetics since they contained animal by-products. He frequently teased his mistress Eva Braun about her habit of wearing makeup..

In his post-war reminiscence The Enigma of Hitler, Belgian SS General, and friend of Hitler's, Léon Degrelle wrote: "He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed."

Esoteric Hitlerist Savitri Devi placed great significance on Hitler's advocacy of animal rights, and admired his aim of "a continent without slaughterhouses," apparently ignoring the bitter irony of this phrase.

 

[obyvatel]

Aloha, All!

Regarding Gandhi, I happened to come across this recently:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234012-Alex-Jones-Mike-Adams-and-the-9-11-Litmus-Test

Les Visible
Reflections in a Petri Dish
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:03 CDT

[...]

My good friend Roy and I were in Uberlingen at the lake this weekend. I like to get away with Roy, when I can, to have conversation. Roy is from India and a native of that land. For some reason we can sit and talk for hours and it's all good. Roy is a very bright fellow of spiritual inclination. He's also very well read and honest as the day is long. He told me a story this weekend, which was distressing to me to say the least. His father was a soldier and his father told him the tale. I spoke about it on the radio show this Sunday night.

Roy told me that Gandhi was not at all as he is made out to be and that he actually wanted the British to stay and worked to that end and that it was Chandra Ghosh who drove them out, even though they didn't actually leave, they just went underground and behind the scenes. I haven't researched this and have no idea of how true it is. As with all things, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle but actually, at right angles to everything else.

I mention this because it is possible that all of our assumptions concerning everyone are wrong...

fwiw :)
Renee

The topic of Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose (not Chandra Ghosh) has long been a matter of animated and emotionally charged discussion for those interested in the history of India's struggle for autonomy from British rule. It is a complex and nuanced topic which tends to cause polarization.

Without going into detail which may not be of interest to most people here - consider this single fact. Bose advocated a military approach to drive the British out and sought to ally himself and his army with the Nazis and the Japanese during the second world war against the British - the strategy being "the enemy's enemy is my friend". Gandhi was opposed to this. Perhaps Gandhi saw the "big picture" and Bose did not?

Bose was a charismatic, brave leader who gave up a potential life of luxury to fight the British. He had his differences with Gandhi ( there was a long political feud) but dealt with the situation with dignity. His lack of appreciation of the big picture perhaps led to his untimely death. Unfortunately, then and now, lot of fundamentalist (of the Hindu color) type characters tend to mask their pathological agenda behind the hero-worship of Bose and make an effort to paint Gandhi as the villain responsible for India's ills.

In the end, Gandhi's contribution to the world was a model of non-violent political resistance and passive non-cooperation which was unique. Bose's model was about meeting fire with fire and he was perhaps cast of the same mould as many other brave revolutionary heroes found in different cultures. Both were human beings who stood up for what they considered as important and died for their specific beliefs. In other words both walked their talk and were made of very different material than the pathological political leaders who strut the stages across the globe today.

 

[Laura]

Adolf Hitler's Medical Health
http://wikipedia.qwika.com/en2fr/Adolf_Hitler's_medical_health

Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism

Aside from being a genocidal maniac, what did Hitler's vegetarianism do for him???

Scent of a Führer

Hitler wanted to control the world. But he couldn't even control his flatulence.

By Tony Perrottet

Guests at the Berghof, Hitler’s private chalet in the Bavarian Alps, must have endured some unpleasant odors in the otherwise healthful mountain air.

It may sound like a Woody Allen scenario, but medical historians are unanimous that Adolf was the victim of uncontrollable flatulence. Spasmodic stomach cramps, constipation and diarrhea, possibly the result of nervous tension, {or rather, his vegetarian diet!} had been Hitler’s curse since childhood and only grew more severe as he aged. As a stressed-out dictator, the agonizing digestive attacks would occur after most meals: Albert Speer recalled that the Führer, ashen-faced, would leap up from the dinner table and disappear to his room... {And he couldn't figure out it was from what he was eating?}

Hitler’s stomach problems may even have played their part in his losing the war, thanks to this shadowy figure of Dr. Morell, an incompetent quack who took over Hitler’s medical care in 1937...For example, to combat recurrences of the volcanic stomach problems, Morell plied him with a remedy called “Dr. Köster’s Anti-gas pills,” which contained significant amounts of strychnine – and Hitler often took as many as 16 of the little black pills a day. The sallow skin, glaucous eyes and attention lapses noted by observers later in the war are consistent with strychnine poisoning; another ingredient in the pills, antropine, causes mood wings from euphoria to violent anger. Even more peculiar were the injections of amphetamines that Morell administered every morning before breakfast from 1941, which may have exacerbated the erratic behavior, inflexibility, paranoia and indecision that Hitler began to display increasingly as the war ground on.

 

[Nević Nenad]

There it is, "the history" of human kind. God only knows how many more "people who made the history" was having problems like that, which affected the history.

But that is also symbolic, shows that history is nothing but one big farting joke

 

[Meager1]

If the world at large is similar to Odysseus' house as he finds it when he returns, and if at the same time our micro-worlds ie. our body-personality-Soul complex is in a way a representation of the World, then Odysseus, the wondering/exploring Soul comes back to his home/body and meets Penelope , the personality-soul who, ideally, has managed to weave and unweave her embroidery countless times to gain Time and not give in to the suitors until Odysseus' return. Weaving and destroying and weaving again, doesn't that sound a bit like breaking the lie-ligants in the brain ? (I’m referring to the bit about them in Secret History).

Or maybe Odysseus was caught in some sort of a repeating drama of an archetype?

What I mean, or rather what I am trying to understand, is the direct relationship of what happened to Odysseus, later in life, as in the Odyssey story, compared to what had already occurred earlier in his life.

For instance, there is reference that he was educated by the centaur Chiron

which would have given him an unusual perspective on things that most people would not have been privy to. And then this,

"Like other young rulers and heroes in Greece, he desired Helen of Troy, the beautiful daughter of King Tyndareus of Sparta. But Ithaca was a poor kingdom, and Odysseus had little hope of winning her. Nevertheless, he went to Sparta as a suitor".

So he already had prior knowledge of the "suitors" mentality, and what it would take to eliminate them, once they were established as suitors. And Penelope herself would have been "niece" to Helen of Troy...

"While in Sparta, Odysseus displayed some of the cunning for which he became famous. Crowds of men had come to Sparta to seek the hand of Helen, and King Tyndareus feared what might happen when he chose one of them to marry his daughter. Odysseus advised the king to make all the suitors swear an oath to protect Helen and the man she married. The suitors agreed and thus accepted Menelaus when he was chosen to be Helen's husband.

To show his gratitude, Tyndareus helped Odysseus win the hand of his niece Penelope, with whom the young hero had fallen in love. The couple returned to Ithaca, and Penelope bore Odysseus a son named Telemachus."

So it seems that both Odysseus and Penelope would have understood the whole "suitors" drama, long before it happened to them!

"He helped discover the whereabouts of Achilles and convince the great hero to join the war.
He tricked Clytemnestra, wife of Agamemnon, into sending her daughter Iphigenia to be sacrificed to the goddess Artemis, so that the Greek ships would have good winds for their voyage to Troy.
When a go-between was needed to settle quarrels between Agamemnon and Achilles, Odysseus stepped in. He also spied on the Trojans and discovered their plans.

Renowned for his eloquent and persuasive speaking, Odysseus was called upon many times to give advice. Although he fought bravely, he preferred strategy to heroics.

When the Greeks captured the Trojan prophet Helenus and asked what they must do to capture Troy, it was Odysseus who accomplished the three tasks that were set.

He persuaded Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, to join the Greeks in battle.

He used trickery to get Philoctetes, keeper of the bow and arrows of Hercules, to join the fighting.

He also used cunning to sneak into Troy and steal the Palladium, a statue of Athena believed to protect the city and bring it good fortune.

Finally, Odysseus came up with the idea of pretending to sail away from Troy and leaving behind an enormous wooden horse—in which Greek soldiers were hidden. This trick enabled the Greeks to enter Troy at night and defeat the Trojans."

So, maybe the 20 year Odyssey itself, was in some way, making amends's for most of what had occurred to that point, or maybe it was set up specifically, to carry over to the life of Odysseus as a part of some repeating theme?

 

[jasminescents]

Thanks for the new session! Lots to think about as usual.

I was thinking about the whole vegetarian issue and India -- how it is brought up and thought of as being such an 'enlightened" place. Yet for all these thousands of years, they have this very strict caste system which doesn't seem very enlightened to me.

And these militant vegetarians never get so vocal about all the torture being carried out and all the death and destruction being dealt. They scream so loudly about animal welfare and don't seem to care much about human welfare.

This was a wonderful session and very much enjoyed it Laura. Thank you much :)

Really resonate with your words. One of the little pet peeves have had is the "general" of persons are always in some separation mode, which I do understand, yet still a pet-peeve. Its either they scream loudly about animal welfare or human welfare and then some even salute to love, light and the power of one. Mind boggling really and yet fascinating at that same time.

All is part of the same organism and all hold their own appreciative value. Animal, plant, human being and any other species for that matter. I for one, will show compassion to all, regardless of their feeding habits or design. Showing compassion for all living oganisms/sentinal beings/ species does not mean have to share their same design or habits.

Again really enjoyed this share!!!!!