• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

General George S. Patton thread

landsend said:
Speedwell, I don't know of your experiences, but it's been my experience that you don't only awaken once, but many times during a lifetime. And looking back you think 'Holy cow, how could I not see THAT before?'

That was pretty much my experience after realising the reality of my life as Terry. Prior to him, past lives were an interesting belief. After him, past lives were a reality. I still am 'awakening' and I wonder if I ever will stop awakening. Maybe that's the original meaning of 'enlightenment'. Perhaps being enlightened simply means being able to see things clearly, i.e from all angles, rather than a one-sided narrow perspective.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that's similar to my own experiences. However, the important difference is that after the first time, I knew what was possible. That I may have gone on many convoluted journeys afterwards could never cause me to forget that a higher state was possible, achievable. The first time was different, it was a complete surprise - and a very joyful one at that.

I have been reluctant to share too many of my experiences as it sometimes seems as though each piece of detail I release would sooner or later lead to a naming of my past-life identity. For the time being I prefer anonymity, hence I often talk in vague terms.
 
Hi Speedwell.. In my opinion its all about where you are right now.. I can only repeat what I have said many times...All physical entities die never to return There is no such thing as physical reincarnation which means there are no physical connections whatsoever between physical entities our spiritual selves have occupied.. So what happens to physical memories when the physical entity is dead?.. They also die never to return when the brain dies.. They are gone forever.. So what are we left with?.. We are left with the spiritual memories of our spiritual self.. Its impossible for our spiritual selves to be multiple maybe even hundreds of different entities.. There is only one entity with one memory.. all of the experiences of each physical entity are within our spiritual selves.. They are not Tom's, Dick's and Harry's memories they are our spiritual selves memories.. As I have said many times our spiritual selves because they are spiritual do not have physical emotions.. so the recorded memories of our spiritual selves lack physical emotions.. So when we have a memory that came from our spiritual selves any emotions you feel are your emotions not the emotions of the memory because there are none.. Just as there are none in a movie.. Emotions you experience while watching a movie are yours.. nobody else's
It's all very complicated and I lack the words to explain it in a proper manner

All The Best
 
SeaAndSky said:
Hi All,

First, I apologize for giving anyone the impression that I was accusing them of being PC. As noted above, I don't think there is a lot of PC on this board, thankfully. Second, Alex, I thought you were talking about some type of more recent "scientific" based eugenics--not the old fashioned Sanger-Hitler variety. (BTW--I don't approve of the former any more than the latter). Third, Jim, I think you're wrong about Ritter lacking a warrior's mentality in not acting in a tactical manner to preserve his position on the board. You're talking about politics, not war. Collins was a politician as well as a fighter, and this seems to be deeply ingrained in you. However, Patton (a born warrior and great tactician) was terrible at politics and was always getting himself into trouble and adversely affected his career because of things he said and did off the battle field that did not sit well with superiors, press, politicians, etc. So, I will continue to accept Ritter as being who he says he was. Fourth, you're right that Ritter believes the things you accuse him of believing. Yet, based on my conversations with him, he also has a job, a family that he loves, and (I believe) would stop by the road to help a neighbor with a flat tire (though maybe not one who looked like an immigrant). If there is any other point you made that I should address, let me know.

However, I'd rather address an initial elephant in the room: the tendency of people to be swallowed by their Ideology and lose their humanity in the process. There is a Japanese proverb I heard once that really impressed me. It speaks to many situations, and you'll have to excuse my "pidgin" Japanese delivery (that is the way I heard it): First man drink sake, then sake drink sake, then sake drink man. First we find something to believe in, then our belief drives us to go deeper and deeper in terms of knowledge and commitment, and finally there comes a place where we no longer have any objective distance. We have replaced reason and the ability to be reasonable with our ideology, which we think is reasonable, but replaces reason and often enough humanity. In the end sake drinks man, the ideology controls and we will do and think whatever we believe it demands. There goes Ritter, there goes Daesh, there goes Antifa, there goes . . . and there--strangely enough--also go many people who might have started out with an ideology far more benign that theirs, including the churchman who ends up burning heretics. Perhaps there are even some devoted to "Republican" values (and I don't mean that in the U.S. sense of the word) who have stumbled into this trap.

The other elephant in the room seems equally controversial: what to make of Patton and the idea of the Warrior type who pursues this vocation devotedly and without repentance. There have definitely been some good things said on that point, but I am out of time. So, I will have to leave further comment for another occasion.

Cordially,
S&S
Click to expand...
S&S, that's one wonderful proverb you have there! And very apt.

I think what causes a lot of difficulty with these kind of discussions is that however hard we might try to be objective, most of us have the temptation to slip in and out of roles, and not necessarily consciously. The 'warrior' will argue quite convincingly and objectively for a while, and all goes well ... until some response might send him straight back into old ways, and once more he is in 'fighting' mode, with all his old instincts coming to the fore. Sober reason goes out of the window, and possibly sends someone else into 'fighting' mode. And so it continues. I have to resist the temptation myself, even if my personal view is that life is too short to spend it in conflict any further. I think the most important thing is to retain respect for one's adversary, if that's what he genuinely merits. In the case of Patton, I have great respect for his achievements and even the kind of soldier he was, despite the fact that he helped destroy my former country and everything I stood for. It would be all too easy to 'take sides', even this long after the war. But I'd hope that by now, most of us have learned something from the past, enough at least not to continue it into the present.

I have had to take insults on this forum, based not on my own person, not even on my views, but on my nationality, and on ideologies which should have been long past. This is what happens when we lose sight of who we are now. Sake drinks man.
 
Tanker, so glad to see your post here. Am sorry someone would insult you based on a past life nationality/identity. I’ve experienced it too and it’s not pleasant. If anything talking to you has allowed me to see a wider perspective on the War as a whole which has served to be therapeutic both for my present life and my memories of former selves.

@John Tat Interesting post and perspective. I have a question regarding your theory of emotions coming after the memory and not having an imprint in our souls. I find it difficult as an empath to grasp this theory, though I understand what you are saying on a rational level. I’ve felt the emotional imprint in a room/historical place long after the event has happened, and the emotions experienced were not my own.

From a past life perspective, I have memories that have no visual cue (they were in complete darkness during captivity). But the emotional component is automatic, before any visual or tactile memory. It is pure fear, abysmal suffering and it causes me to hyperventilate. I’m not reacting to anything, there is nothing to react to as I see nothing. I’m feeling the same fear I felt back then whilst living another life. Likewise, whenever I’ve gone into spontaneous flashback type memories the emotions do not belong to my present self, but my past self. I know this because my past self reacted differently to emotion than I do — he was angry and repressive, he rarely cried, if ever, and his manner of crying is different to my manner, which again comes through to the present. Again the emotion feels omnipresent, it is there before the visual event happens. This includes extreme anger, fear, happiness, sadness, suicidal depression, etc.
 
I'm not talking about politics S&S. Its true Collins was a politician also, its also true I was political in the late eighteenth century, but my politics were a precursor to or intrinsically linked to conflict. In essence I was a wartime politician as Collins. I have to go all the way back to the early eleventh century to find a time when I was political during a period of relative peace.

As Collins I made plenty of enemies within my political sphere even before the Civil War. Not everyone agreed with what I was doing. In my current life I wasn't affiliated to any political party although I was a patriot devoted to the overall Republican ideal ( as you say, in the Irish sense of the term ). That gave me the power to challenge politicians. Yet for me politics was a means to an end, just another field of battle. I took the power to give it back to the people. Some people even theorise that I was a dictator in waiting but I wasn't, I was a multi tasker. I did what was necessary to succeed and resolve conflict.

Yet Ritter specifically said that he was going to war against the mods. In his linked writing he specifically said that as a warrior he had to fight. He has also said in the past that he had training and was expert in guerilla warfare. In that context he should have known that outright confrontation of the mods wouldn't succeed. He should have known to have done it in the background. Also his attempt to recruit other members to his cause should have been done in pm. If, as Collins, I had attempted to recruit spies or forces in the full glare of the British forces how far do you think the War Of Independence would have gotten? Ritter did it in the full glare of the mods. That's amateurish not expert. Its a basic rule anyone with half a brain would know.

Republican values are about the people. I've seen a Civil War already where those values gave people carte blanche to commit atrocities, yet I stand by my Republican ideals. I've found they've helped many people. Although I don't believe Ireland has yet blossomed into a fully functioning Republic I like to think that in my current life I've contributed to a prosperous future in a peaceful way. I'd like to think I've learned.

Landsend, tanker and Alex. In my current life I've reacted pretty much the same emotionally as I have in my past lives. There are some variations. I'm more insecure around women generally than I was in my past lives due to childhood abuse for instance, conversely I'm more sexually open at the same time because I was born after the sexual revolution ( although I was reared in Catholic Ireland so I'm repressed in some ways too ). That's one example of how I'm different, but generally I'm the same person. There isn't much difference really.
 
@emotions: I´d like to add that I´m very close my PL self on an emotional level, I would say ALMOST the same but the difference is that I think the now female hormones interfere. If it wasn´t for the hormones I´d would cry far less, and I probably wouldn´t feel as responsible for the kids as I do. Nothing wrong with responsibility, but gee, they are absolutly able to manage their leisure activities without me reminding them constantly :rolleyes:. And if they miss a date so be it :cool:. I bet I would change to my good old self by taking Testosteron and this thought probably scares me a bit.

Always interesting what JohnTat is saying -- I try to get the message. But even by trying to understand I´m not sure I would trust BB that much.

@Ritter was an interesting kind. With his statements I tried to figure out how he lives in his rural nordic environment and how he gets along with his wife and daughter. He told us a lot, that his collegues thought of him as an honest and nice guy, so anyway I have a hard time to picture him at home, really. So he either doesn´t talk about his beliefs at home (neither do I, to be honest) or they all must have like wise attitudes, which is a bit scary too -- he said most people have no soul, animals have no soul, majority of people don´t reincarnate, only warriors reincarnate... you name it.
Funny or scary or makes you wonder? Would be interesting to have informations about his childhood. :rolleyes:

But well, that is all off topic! All I knew of Gen. Patton was that he believed in reincarnation, so I cannot add anything here…
 
Re: John Tat's perspective on reincarnation--

I don't doubt that BB sees things the way John says, but BB and John are a special case. John is failing to recognize that in reiterating this position as being applicable to other people. It is probably true of BB, but I don't think it will be true for the rest of us--and nothing indicates that it is. However, this will be better discussed in full on John's thread, so I will take it up again there.

Re: Ritter's perspective on reincarnation--

It is obviously different from the rest of us, but not that different in some respects from what the Abrahamic religions predominantly teach--i.e., you got one life and you better make it count or you ain't coming back (at least not in a good way)! So, each life is a test. Ritter was definite about the warrior spirits passing his own version of the "test" and getting to reincarnate, etc. He was also definite about not all people making it, and not getting to come back. However, he showed no sign of having a theory about everybody not covered by these broad generalities--i.e., the rest of us. Mostly, aside from intuition and instinct, his beliefs seemed rooted in his devotion to ancient "heathen" ideas--mostly those of the Norse, etc.--that the warriors get to go to Valhalla (or equivalent) and some or most of the rest go to Hel (or the equivalent). However, I think he left room for some (at least) of the non-warriors to come back. I didn't get much further than that with him, and I'm not sure he had thought any further than that either.

On both perspectives--

Both of these perspectives are very singular and reflect ancient and/or personal perspectives. This is not necessarily bad, but my problem is that they don't jive with the bulk of modern research or the personal experiences of the vast majority of people. John's is based on the beliefs and teachings of BB (an ancient Egyptian), perhaps recast somewhat by John. Ritter's is based on his own somewhat unique religious beliefs and personal perspective. Once again, they are interesting, but any proposition should be tested against experience and experiment where possible IMO. The vast bulk of both, so far as I am aware of them, support neither of these positions/perspectives overall. However, I think John's may be true for him, and that BB will take over on the next round and John will go ?. Likewise, Ritter's may be true for him on an individual basis (in the same strange way it seemed to be true for Patton).

Hi Glia,

I also find individuals like this and their unique perspectives and experiences very interesting.

Cordially,
S&S
 
Last edited:
Aside from General Patton's beliefs in reincarnation, I found out in a book I am reading that he was not the only high-ranked officer who was vocal about it: Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, who oversaw the Fighter Command's defence of the UK airspace during the Battle of Britain, claimed that he was the reincarnation of a Mongol warrior. I believe some of his letters recently auctioned were pretty explicit about his beliefs. I also invite those interesting in this quite unique man to read his book "Many mansions", published in 1943, where he bases his view on the Afterlife on many instances of survival of the soul of fallen fighter pilots, that he documented.

On the topic of Ritter, since his banishment is fueling some intense conversation on this thread, I find it sad that a man that displayed both deep knowledge and personal insights would get lost in the madness of such an old and broken ideology. I wish him the best, to be honest. I hope he will discard those old thoughts like one discards old clothing that do not fit anymore.

What did he end up doing to get banned, in the end?
 
Hi Benjamin,

Very interesting info on Dowding. On Ritter, my summary in post #46 got a "like" from Deborah, so I assume it is an accurate summary. I also lament his banning (and still hope that management will relent at some point). He, like the rest of you tank guys, has been a very good addition to the board--though he presents some problems that you and Tanker do not. Like you, I hope that he can someday let go of the past and move forward into the present.

Cordially,
S&S
 
As much as I believe in freedom of speech, when we start to attack each other's beliefs, and claim that our way is the one and only way, then it is a step over freedom of speech and in line with indoctrination. Ritter's way of thinking sort to indoctrinate, not educate. Anyone who believes that a fellow human has no soul really needs to analyse what makes him think he himself has a soul. Personally, I've seen animals and children with more 'soul' than many a man. Many of us go around ignoring the fundamental essence of ourselves. In fact, I don't think anyone in contact with their 'soul' could kill without mercy.

Chatting with my partner earlier, he came up with the same conclusion as myself. 'Warrior cultures' that create an ultimate heaven for the noble warrior serves as an highly motivational tool. It is a way to create a method of killing, one without a conscience. If your enemy has no soul, why, then it doesn't matter how much raping and pillaging we do. It does not even matter if we die, because eternal heaven, a thousand concubines, all the riches of the world will all be ours across those pearly gates. The extremists terrorist groups around these days also have that line of thinking, but then so do the extreme groups out there who believe that immigrants are the problem for everything. It also reminds me of Gen. Westmorelands comments during the Vietnam War: 'The Orientals do not place as much value on life as we in the West do.' This is the 'Mere Gook Rule'. Don't mean nothin', it's just a god-damned Gook. In other words, if your enemy is less than human, he's easier to kill. Lesson No.1 in basic dehumanisation training. But lets not place the Vietnamese on a pedestal. They killed, and tortured just as easily those they considered to be 'Imperialist Aggressors'.
 
Last edited:
I actually told my family that I want The Clash's version of I Fought The Law played at my funeral. I also want Steppenwolfs Magic Carpet Ride played as my burial music. My sisters ex boyfriend wants the theme time to The Great Escape played at his burial. I wish I had of thought of that.

Hi Tanker. Ritter considered me less of a warrior because I didn't share his ideology and I've awoken to the futility of war. I believe a warrior is in service to people and particularly the weak and vulnerable, a warrior isn't about overpowering the weak and vulnerable like Ritter thought IMO.

I've already touched on a warriors dehumanisation of an enemy in another topic so I won't talk about it here. What I will say is that Ritter had an idealised, naive version of what a warrior is. The way I see it is like the saying goes 'the purest virgin is the reformed tart'. A warrior must go through the trails of darkness to arrive at a purer ideology. A warrior isn't simply someone that embraces darkness. IMO they must ultimately have a purpose, not simply love the darkness of conflict. Anarchy and chaos is from the divil. Vision is from the Gods IMO.
 
Well, lots of Ritter criticism going on around here. Much of it might be considered "constructive" criticism. Actually, I suppose that all of it could be considered constructive criticism so long as underlying attitudes are disregarded. Either way, there is definitely some good advice, albeit a bit late at this point. Anyhow, I will miss Ritter's unique and iconoclastic (if occasionally offensive) style. However, I would prefer not to speak ill of the dead, which is the effect of banning vis-a-vis board participation, and will continue to hope for his possible resurrection at a later date (though I seem to be alone in this).

Cordially,
S&S

PS--Jim, I really like your last paragraph. I would prefer to think that what you have said is true, but somehow I just don't feel qualified to comment. I have not been a warrior in this life, and have no memories to back up ever having been a warrior. Thus, I hear one side of the warrior thing from people like you and Benjamin and Tanker, and another side from people like Patton and Ritter, and I am having a hard time deciding which side is right (or whether there is a general rule and exceptions). For the time being, I feel like I'm just going to have to let it ride.
 
Last edited:
SeaAndSky said:
Well, lots of Ritter criticism going on around here. Much of it might be considered "constructive" criticism. Actually, I suppose that all of it could be considered constructive criticism so long as underlying attitudes are disregarded. Either way, there is definitely some good advice, albeit a bit late at this point. Anyhow, I will miss Ritter's unique and iconoclastic (if occasionally offensive) style. However, I would prefer not to speak ill of the dead, which is the affect of banning vis-a-vis board participation, and will continue to hope for his possible resurrection at a later date (though I seem to be alone in this).

Cordially,
S&S

PS--Jim, I really like your last paragraph. I would prefer to think that what you have said is true, but somehow I just don't feel qualified to comment. I have not been a warrior in this life, and have no memories to back up ever having been a warrior. Thus, I hear one side of the warrior thing from people like you and Benjamin and Tanker, and another side from people like Patton and Ritter, and I am having a hard time deciding which side is right (or whether there is a general rule and exceptions). For the time being, I feel like I'm just going to have to let it ride.
Click to expand...

SeaAndSky, I don't think it's a case of 'which side is right', or whether one has to come down on one side or another. There are just differing personal views, and we're all entitled to those. My view is simply that we should all be kind and respectful to one another, and when someone isn't, then they shouldn't be encouraged.
 
I don't think there is right or wrong in it either S&S. I just think it is what it is. I was an unrepentant warrior up until four years ago. Maybe Patton hasn't reached my point in the warriors journey yet. I dunno.
 
I think there comes a point in everyone’s journey where they turn another page, and decide to embark upon another direction. With the evolution of technology, we are capable of more destruction, even total destruction. And destruction that causes generational damage (Agent Orange, anyone?). This sort of advancement requires a conscious society to not be used at all, or seldom used. Unfortunately our society lacks the foresight to realise this, and we are caught up in petty squabbles. Meanwhile, innocents become victims of attrocities, people die, are born with deformities, so on, so forth. I always remember Matthew 16:26 For what is a man profited if he should gain the world, but lose his soul?

At times I feel the ‘enternal warrior’ is someone who has deeply lost contact with their soul, over lifetimes. My belief is that a soul wound sets someone on this pathway, and the unconscious need to resolve the wound brings the warrior back to conflict time, and time again. This has been my experience, at least.
 
Does anyone know of a book (historical preferably) that goes into good detail about Patton's reincarnation experiences. I am trying to find one.
 
Jet said:
Does anyone know of a book (historical preferably) that goes into good detail about Patton's reincarnation experiences. I am trying to find one.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you might enjoy the book "The Past Lives and Reincarnation of General George S. Patton Jr." It is available on kindle.
 
Just wondering how new war claimant members feel about the differing views on warriors brought up in this topic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top