Prev: Who is the squid?
Next: The world somehow "needed" the "evil" of a Hitler?
From: S'mee on 22 Apr 2010 10:09
On Apr 22, 7:55 am, Jim Sumner <JimSummer...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:44 am, tooly <rd...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 9:11 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 6:52 am, climber <coledenk...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n3p22_Degrelle.html
>
> > > > Interesting piece by former Belgium SS volunteer leader.
>
> > > > climber
>
> > > ""Hitler -- You knew him -- what was he like?"
>
> > > I have been asked that question a thousand times since 1945, and
> > > nothing is more difficult to answer."
>
> > > The difficulty arises from looking into the space and ignoring the
> > > complementary negative space. The enigma can not be resolved without
> > > the context. Many a mathematical theorem can only be proven by
> > > negative logic.
>
> > > Hitler was mostly irrelevant as a person. Another loser could have
> > > done just as well. What made him were the circumstances and his
> > > sponsors.
>
> > I look at MLK in the same way.  I remember he was just another tinhorn
> > bible thumper with black pomposity and rhetoric.  But like Hitler, he
> > became ICONIC at a specific point in time and place...of circumstances
> > that were larger than he was.  Probably any black orator of the day
> > would have done.  Of course, MLK will go down in history as a major
> > focal point in world change.
>
> > Makes one wonder about history and our champions as we have learned of
> > them.  JFK...now I think perhaps he had greatness in him.  Reagan was
> > not what I'd call a 'great man', but he had an amazing 'stabalizing'
> > character about him; one rested easy at night with him in charge...and
> > the world prospered.
>
> > As I've read, I think Ben Franklin was truly a great man.  His real
> > notoriety came through science before his diplomatic skills of the
> > day.  The guy was talented to the hilt. Europe was taken with him as
> > he was an exceptional man.
>
> > Alexander Hamilton also impresses me in history.
>
> > Some others who were given greatness status but, as I see it, were
> > probably more in the right place at the right time was Abraham Lincoln
> > and Thomas Jefferson [not to say their achievements weren't great, but
> > as 'great men' and leaders of their time that affected the rest of the
> > world...I dunno].
>
> > Was Ghandi a great man?  Perhaps he was.
>
> > It is hard to pinpoint what makes any man GREAT.  It is a quality we
> > recognize though when we see it in person [or not].  I read somewhere
> > Hitler did command a certain fanatical loyalty in his closest
> > associates.  Is that true?
>
> > Was Lenin a great man?  The more I read about him, he seems like he
> > was a conniver...a kind of weasle with power.  Stalin was mad I think
> > and a bully...a simple murderer; hardly great.
>
> > Perhaps the Greatest man who ever lived [as I've read history
> > anyway]...appears could have been Alexander The Great.
>
>   Without the media to praise him MLK would have been deemed a trouble-
> maker. The other thing about these categorizations of leaders as being
> great, good, bad, etc. is that most of it is after the fact based on
> whether they won or lost. Germans are the biggest phonies of all, the
> really hate Hitler because he lost the war, they actually don't care
> about human atrocities committed during his regime, they are angry
> that he caused them to get bombed and to die on battlefields in an
> ultimately lost war. Lenin and Stalin are hated for not bringing
> Russians the material prosperity equal to that found in the west.

Really? Gee, then I must have talked to the delusional muscovites much
less the nice german emigree' who baked bread at our school when I was
a kid...they would have called your assertation ridiculous and told
you that you were talking to old school stalinists or nazi's. <nods
sadly> them ain't human people, they are sick.
From: Akira Bergman on 22 Apr 2010 16:48
On Apr 23, 12:09 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:55 am, Jim Sumner <JimSummer...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 7:44 am, tooly <rd...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 19, 9:11 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 6:52 am, climber <coledenk...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n3p22_Degrelle.html
>
> > > > > Interesting piece by former Belgium SS volunteer leader.
>
> > > > > climber
>
> > > > ""Hitler -- You knew him -- what was he like?"
>
> > > > I have been asked that question a thousand times since 1945, and
> > > > nothing is more difficult to answer."
>
> > > > The difficulty arises from looking into the space and ignoring the
> > > > complementary negative space. The enigma can not be resolved without
> > > > the context. Many a mathematical theorem can only be proven by
> > > > negative logic.
>
> > > > Hitler was mostly irrelevant as a person. Another loser could have
> > > > done just as well. What made him were the circumstances and his
> > > > sponsors.
>
> > > I look at MLK in the same way.  I remember he was just another tinhorn
> > > bible thumper with black pomposity and rhetoric.  But like Hitler, he
> > > became ICONIC at a specific point in time and place...of circumstances
> > > that were larger than he was.  Probably any black orator of the day
> > > would have done.  Of course, MLK will go down in history as a major
> > > focal point in world change.
>
> > > Makes one wonder about history and our champions as we have learned of
> > > them.  JFK...now I think perhaps he had greatness in him.  Reagan was
> > > not what I'd call a 'great man', but he had an amazing 'stabalizing'
> > > character about him; one rested easy at night with him in charge...and
> > > the world prospered.
>
> > > As I've read, I think Ben Franklin was truly a great man.  His real
> > > notoriety came through science before his diplomatic skills of the
> > > day.  The guy was talented to the hilt. Europe was taken with him as
> > > he was an exceptional man.
>
> > > Alexander Hamilton also impresses me in history.
>
> > > Some others who were given greatness status but, as I see it, were
> > > probably more in the right place at the right time was Abraham Lincoln
> > > and Thomas Jefferson [not to say their achievements weren't great, but
> > > as 'great men' and leaders of their time that affected the rest of the
> > > world...I dunno].
>
> > > Was Ghandi a great man?  Perhaps he was.
>
> > > It is hard to pinpoint what makes any man GREAT.  It is a quality we
> > > recognize though when we see it in person [or not].  I read somewhere
> > > Hitler did command a certain fanatical loyalty in his closest
> > > associates.  Is that true?
>
> > > Was Lenin a great man?  The more I read about him, he seems like he
> > > was a conniver...a kind of weasle with power.  Stalin was mad I think
> > > and a bully...a simple murderer; hardly great.
>
> > > Perhaps the Greatest man who ever lived [as I've read history
> > > anyway]...appears could have been Alexander The Great.
>
> >   Without the media to praise him MLK would have been deemed a trouble-
> > maker. The other thing about these categorizations of leaders as being
> > great, good, bad, etc. is that most of it is after the fact based on
> > whether they won or lost. Germans are the biggest phonies of all, the
> > really hate Hitler because he lost the war, they actually don't care
> > about human atrocities committed during his regime, they are angry
> > that he caused them to get bombed and to die on battlefields in an
> > ultimately lost war. Lenin and Stalin are hated for not bringing
> > Russians the material prosperity equal to that found in the west.
>
> Really? Gee, then I must have talked to the delusional muscovites much
> less the nice german emigree' who baked bread at our school when I was
> a kid...they would have called your assertation ridiculous and told
> you that you were talking to old school stalinists or nazi's. <nods
> sadly> them ain't human people, they are sick.

..
..
Demonisation is a favorite propaganda instrument of the corrupt ruling
classes. Balance is the key to understanding. Don't be scared, even
you can understand the negative space.
From: Akira Bergman on 22 Apr 2010 17:03
On Apr 22, 9:44 pm, tooly <rd...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:11 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 6:52 am, climber <coledenk...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n3p22_Degrelle.html
>
> > > Interesting piece by former Belgium SS volunteer leader.
>
> > > climber
>
> > ""Hitler -- You knew him -- what was he like?"
>
> > I have been asked that question a thousand times since 1945, and
> > nothing is more difficult to answer."
>
> > The difficulty arises from looking into the space and ignoring the
> > complementary negative space. The enigma can not be resolved without
> > the context. Many a mathematical theorem can only be proven by
> > negative logic.
>
> > Hitler was mostly irrelevant as a person. Another loser could have
> > done just as well. What made him were the circumstances and his
> > sponsors.
>
> I look at MLK in the same way.  I remember he was just another tinhorn
> bible thumper with black pomposity and rhetoric.  But like Hitler, he
> became ICONIC at a specific point in time and place...of circumstances
> that were larger than he was.  Probably any black orator of the day
> would have done.  Of course, MLK will go down in history as a major
> focal point in world change.
>
> Makes one wonder about history and our champions as we have learned of
> them.  JFK...now I think perhaps he had greatness in him.  Reagan was
> not what I'd call a 'great man', but he had an amazing 'stabalizing'
> character about him; one rested easy at night with him in charge...and
> the world prospered.
>
> As I've read, I think Ben Franklin was truly a great man.  His real
> notoriety came through science before his diplomatic skills of the
> day.  The guy was talented to the hilt. Europe was taken with him as
> he was an exceptional man.
>
> Alexander Hamilton also impresses me in history.
>
> Some others who were given greatness status but, as I see it, were
> probably more in the right place at the right time was Abraham Lincoln
> and Thomas Jefferson [not to say their achievements weren't great, but
> as 'great men' and leaders of their time that affected the rest of the
> world...I dunno].
>
> Was Ghandi a great man?  Perhaps he was.
>
> It is hard to pinpoint what makes any man GREAT.  It is a quality we
> recognize though when we see it in person [or not].  I read somewhere
> Hitler did command a certain fanatical loyalty in his closest
> associates.  Is that true?

True greatness is related to originality and creation of long lasting
systems.

Fanatical following is not too difficult to muster. It is an animal
instinct to seek a master to serve. In times of chaos, this need
increases. You just need the right key to lock them in. Modern
examples are plenty.

>
> Was Lenin a great man?  The more I read about him, he seems like he
> was a conniver...a kind of weasle with power.  Stalin was mad I think
> and a bully...a simple murderer; hardly great.

Anyone who buys into 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' can not be
a great man. Specially feeding a monster like Stalin is a very bad
sign. We should not forget the Russian sponsors behind the curtain.
After all USSR was a racist state.

>
> Perhaps the Greatest man who ever lived [as I've read history
> anyway]...appears could have been Alexander The Great.

..
I think the greatest man ever lived was J.S.Bach.
From: tooly on 22 Apr 2010 07:44
On Apr 19, 9:11 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:52 am, climber <coledenk...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n3p22_Degrelle.html
>
> > Interesting piece by former Belgium SS volunteer leader.
>
> > climber
>
> ""Hitler -- You knew him -- what was he like?"
>
> I have been asked that question a thousand times since 1945, and
> nothing is more difficult to answer."
>
> The difficulty arises from looking into the space and ignoring the
> complementary negative space. The enigma can not be resolved without
> the context. Many a mathematical theorem can only be proven by
> negative logic.
>
> Hitler was mostly irrelevant as a person. Another loser could have
> done just as well. What made him were the circumstances and his
> sponsors.

I look at MLK in the same way. I remember he was just another tinhorn
bible thumper with black pomposity and rhetoric. But like Hitler, he
became ICONIC at a specific point in time and place...of circumstances
that were larger than he was. Probably any black orator of the day
would have done. Of course, MLK will go down in history as a major
focal point in world change.

Makes one wonder about history and our champions as we have learned of
them. JFK...now I think perhaps he had greatness in him. Reagan was
not what I'd call a 'great man', but he had an amazing 'stabalizing'
character about him; one rested easy at night with him in charge...and
the world prospered.

As I've read, I think Ben Franklin was truly a great man. His real
notoriety came through science before his diplomatic skills of the
day. The guy was talented to the hilt. Europe was taken with him as
he was an exceptional man.

Alexander Hamilton also impresses me in history.

Some others who were given greatness status but, as I see it, were
probably more in the right place at the right time was Abraham Lincoln
and Thomas Jefferson [not to say their achievements weren't great, but
as 'great men' and leaders of their time that affected the rest of the
world...I dunno].

Was Ghandi a great man? Perhaps he was.

It is hard to pinpoint what makes any man GREAT. It is a quality we
recognize though when we see it in person [or not]. I read somewhere
Hitler did command a certain fanatical loyalty in his closest
associates. Is that true?

Was Lenin a great man? The more I read about him, he seems like he
was a conniver...a kind of weasle with power. Stalin was mad I think
and a bully...a simple murderer; hardly great.

Perhaps the Greatest man who ever lived [as I've read history
anyway]...appears could have been Alexander The Great.

From: Jim Sumner on 22 Apr 2010 09:55
On Apr 22, 7:44 am, tooly <rd...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:11 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 6:52 am, climber <coledenk...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n3p22_Degrelle.html
>
> > > Interesting piece by former Belgium SS volunteer leader.
>
> > > climber
>
> > ""Hitler -- You knew him -- what was he like?"
>
> > I have been asked that question a thousand times since 1945, and
> > nothing is more difficult to answer."
>
> > The difficulty arises from looking into the space and ignoring the
> > complementary negative space. The enigma can not be resolved without
> > the context. Many a mathematical theorem can only be proven by
> > negative logic.
>
> > Hitler was mostly irrelevant as a person. Another loser could have
> > done just as well. What made him were the circumstances and his
> > sponsors.
>
> I look at MLK in the same way.  I remember he was just another tinhorn
> bible thumper with black pomposity and rhetoric.  But like Hitler, he
> became ICONIC at a specific point in time and place...of circumstances
> that were larger than he was.  Probably any black orator of the day
> would have done.  Of course, MLK will go down in history as a major
> focal point in world change.
>
> Makes one wonder about history and our champions as we have learned of
> them.  JFK...now I think perhaps he had greatness in him.  Reagan was
> not what I'd call a 'great man', but he had an amazing 'stabalizing'
> character about him; one rested easy at night with him in charge...and
> the world prospered.
>
> As I've read, I think Ben Franklin was truly a great man.  His real
> notoriety came through science before his diplomatic skills of the
> day.  The guy was talented to the hilt. Europe was taken with him as
> he was an exceptional man.
>
> Alexander Hamilton also impresses me in history.
>
> Some others who were given greatness status but, as I see it, were
> probably more in the right place at the right time was Abraham Lincoln
> and Thomas Jefferson [not to say their achievements weren't great, but
> as 'great men' and leaders of their time that affected the rest of the
> world...I dunno].
>
> Was Ghandi a great man?  Perhaps he was.
>
> It is hard to pinpoint what makes any man GREAT.  It is a quality we
> recognize though when we see it in person [or not].  I read somewhere
> Hitler did command a certain fanatical loyalty in his closest
> associates.  Is that true?
>
> Was Lenin a great man?  The more I read about him, he seems like he
> was a conniver...a kind of weasle with power.  Stalin was mad I think
> and a bully...a simple murderer; hardly great.
>
> Perhaps the Greatest man who ever lived [as I've read history
> anyway]...appears could have been Alexander The Great.


Without the media to praise him MLK would have been deemed a trouble-
maker. The other thing about these categorizations of leaders as being
great, good, bad, etc. is that most of it is after the fact based on
whether they won or lost. Germans are the biggest phonies of all, the
really hate Hitler because he lost the war, they actually don't care
about human atrocities committed during his regime, they are angry
that he caused them to get bombed and to die on battlefields in an
ultimately lost war. Lenin and Stalin are hated for not bringing
Russians the material prosperity equal to that found in the west.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Who is the squid?
Next: The world somehow "needed" the "evil" of a Hitler?