> On 6/6/2011 8:51 AM, Pat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 12:50 pm, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Pat , what makes you so sure that Charles Manson and Hitler were
> >> following their true nature , if there is such a thing.
>
> > Also, with respect to Manson, he was happy in prison and didn't mind
> > returning at all. He'd already spent over half his life behind bars
> > of some variety and was only too happy to let California feed, clothe
> > and shelter him at full cost to the taxpayer. Manson, a true
> > freeloader with a penchant for controlling others did exactly what one
> > might expect from him, if one knew him. He controlled a few people
> > and acted in such a way as to land himself back in prison
> > forever...purely his true nature. Hitler, as he's no longer alive, is
> > harder to assess, but, I think you'll find that he really didn't like
> > Jews to the point of extermination, if possible. Same for Romany
> > gypsies, blacks and homosexuals. He had an idea of a perfect race
> > (one that conflicted with his own traits, mind) and acted in such a
> > way as to bring that about. Of course, he was incorrect in thinking
> > that race matters at all (one might have thought a look in the mirror
> > would have convinced him, but apparently not) and was defeated.
>
> Very interesting reasoning Pat, I've heard an argument like this before
> but think it's used as a farce, never heard it outright! The scariest
> shit.. I just might agree, logically it doesn't seem to make sense
> otherwise. Either take the whole package, or sacrifice omnipresence:
> unless there is a rock God can-not lift (there's an oxymoron). If you
> carry on like this I will have to buy your book, just to imagine all the
> pious ones out there stamping their foot and flaring nostrils at the
> nerve of someone pointing it out. But really, what kind of revolutionary
> doesn't walk into a conversation and agree with everyone then exceed all
> expectations by pissing them all off (something I try to bottle up in a
> chuckle). Good game! :D
Once I have a few copies, I strongly suspect that the regulars on this
forum would be receiving FREE, signed copies, as the forum has
contributed materially to the book and, in my view, it's only fair.
This couldn't extend beyond 30 copies, which, if I sell millions, is
no loss whatsoever. Part of 'provoking thought' is 'provoking'.
If I write something worth reading, it WILL provoke people in many
different ways. To be honest, I expect nothing less than a price on
my head in this world of extremists.
>> But he still serves as a great 'bad example'.
>
> I wonder, what would we say if he succeeded? Aside from the scientific
> in-/validity of the �bermensch hypothesis, that is.
>
Hitler could never have succeeded, as he simply didn't have the
manpower. Plus, he went West too early. He made the opposite mistake
to Napoleon. Had Napoleon attacked Russia first and secured the East,
the road back home would have been possible; but, taking on Western
Europe and, then, in the midst, trying it on with Russia, spread
himself too thinly. You would have thought he'd have read The Art of
War. If he did, he didn't comprehend it. Hitler, though, was a near-
genius crackpot. And having advisors/helpers like Himmler and Goebels
and Goering didn't REALLY help him. Himmler wanted to be a demigod,
Goebels would tell anybody anything, so long as he knew it was what
they wanted to hear and Goering already proved himself (it's always a
clean and pretty war from a plane) in WWI, although his suicide-
solution ending was cowardly.
Perhaps Uebermensch is what we ALL will evolve into once we accept the
truths about the universe. Without knowing the truth about the
universe in which we exist, we have little chance of determining our
role in it. My book does the graft and leaves the reader with the
info they need. The 'problem' lies in accepting the info in the
book. I can't force people to change their views but I feel obligated
to, at least, provide them with the opportunity to accept learn and
understand certain things and they can change or not. the changing is
up ot them (in fairness to Lee, the truth in changing is up to God and
whether or not God requires those changes to take place).
>
>
>
>
> >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Pat<PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On May 31, 5:24 pm, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Whatever a man does he is bound to do as the Will of God is supreme,
> >>>> but a person is not a robot. The " I " is an active agent and it is
> >>>> the individual who taking control over his nature does good in this
> >>>> world and on letting himself go does the bad. Strength of resolve is
> >>>> inherent in every person , some use it a lot, others let their
> >>>> impulses rule most of the time. It is in man's hand to keep his nature
> >>>> under control , and again in his hand to let it run amok.
> >>> I agree with one exception. Actually, it's more of an inclusion. An
> >>> individual must discover their nature before taking control of it.
> >>> Then the rest follows...good or bad. For example, I fully believe
> >>> that Charles Manson DID discover his true nature and STILL inflicted
> >>> great injuries against humanity. The same for Hitler. Sometimes,
> >>> knowing one's nature does not prevent one from doing evil but leads
> >>> them to do it. In other words, if it is God's will that X be done and
> >>> X is perceived by most people to be evil, X will still be done, as it
> >>> is the will of God.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment