How long?
On Jun 7, 2:02 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 3:15 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment