Measuring One's Intelligence To Others

I'll use the Central Banking system to illustrate my point.

The Central Banking system is a privately owned system which means one or a few created this system.
The entire Central Banking system is one big scam. A Central Banking system exists all over the world,
therefore the scam is global.

For those of you that have no economic background, here is a short 3 minute video explaining how the
scam works. Although the system is far more complex to be summed up in 3 minutes, nevertheless, it
should suffice for argument sake.

New members are not allowed to post links for 7 days, so just add the www
Link to video >>> youtube.com/watch?v=hx16a72j__8

The majority of the world participates in this system while remaining completely oblivious to the scam &
its architect/s. Then there are some who are aware, but do nothing about it, and then there are those
few who are aware and act in response (either by climbing up the hierarchy but still remaining in the
system, or beating the system by eventually joining or overthrowing the original charlatans who
created the system.

The original charlatan/s who created the system participate in their own creation but always maintain
an outside perspective. Thus in this example, these charlatans are quite the elitists.

So my point here is that one measures his/her intelligence to others by observing the amount of
resisters & participants in the system you created, while you give the appearance of being apart of this
very system yet always maintaining an outside perspective. The more specimens lured into your system,
the greater elitist you are.

As Arthur Schopenhauer puts it "suffering by nature or chance never seems so painful as suffering
inflicted on us by the arbitrary will of another."

It's actually a little ironic to quote him on that - given the content.

What say thou?

If what you're saying is true why can't the Greeks simply print out more euro's to get themselves out of debt?

You're bringing up a whole different topic, but I'll answer you in short. Hyperinflation.
Plus, they already tried to do it, it made matters worse & prolonged the damage. You'll
have people rolling wagons of gold or in this case, stacks of cash, just to purchase a loaf
of bread like it was done in Germany and other places. Everyone in the Soviet Union had
a job, but with nothing to eat.

Pay attention to Hayek's arguments in the video, and you'll have the basic understanding
of why you can't spend yourself out of problems. It doesn't create real wealth. Keynes is
the economic philosophy of government intervention (central bank usage). Hayek is the
antithesis. This is part 2 to the original part 1 released some time ago.

Skip to 1:53

Link (add www) >>> youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

So haven't you kind of negated the claims in the original video? The banking system can't simply print out money when it likes as it will lead to hyperinflation and economic collapse. It has to be linked to the value of goods and services in an economy.

Don't elitists tend to distance themselves from the system - try to remain anonymous - so as not to draw attention, and promote plebs as figureheads to take the flak?

Is that what you mean by intelligence?

No, I'm simply pointing out that I'm aware of the scam, and I'm explaining why it's wrong,
but that doesn't stop one from doing something wrong. It can print out money, it does print
out money, it in fact did print out money ($trillions), and it continues to do so, but it's just
causing more and more damage to the people within the system, not the one's who created
the system. The owners of the banks won't allow a collapse because that would be self-defeat
so instead the idea is to reduce the masses to slave like conditions. Making it difficult for them
to climb the hierarchy.

The few elite who own the private central banking system are the one's who gain from the
collapse anyway (if they allowed one). They always win, everyone else loses. The higher
you're at the hierarchy of the system, the less of a hit you will take.

And I actually mentioned this in my original post, that the few who own the private bank are
unknown to the masses. It's called the European Central Bank, not Mr. so and so. Likewise,
in America, it's called the central bank of America. So you have the illusion that it's government
owned, thus protecting the elites.

But if you take the Rothschild's, for example, they developed international finance houses as a way of securing their wealth from the ravages of anti-semitic governments and mobs, transferring it into stocks and bonds on the global market and so making it physically unreachable. You could destroy their businesses and homes but their wealth was secure.

In this sense Schopenhauer's words strike a far deeper significance with the Rothschild's experience than some sheeple who thinks the world owes him or her a living and society should shelter the less fortunate.

Sheltering comes at a price - it breeds weakness and failure. Just like if you sit around eating Twinkies all day you end up poor, fat and diseased... and that's exactly what you deserve.

No argument from me on this, I fully agree.

But let's not be too hasty. This behavior of the Jews is probably the reason why Hitler created the Final Solution. He realized it was futile trying to eliminate them by destroying their businesses and property, they'd only pop back up somewhere else. They had to be physically destroyed. The next stage might see the Jews becoming programs living in computers or satellites or something. The next Hitler might opt for a Final Power-Cut Solution.

In the meantime they are almost certainly responsible for postmodernism. It was a gay Jewish doctor who's ideas about race, gender and sexuality currently determine Western discourse in the subjects. Not without considerable help from Jewish business interests and their powerful influence on government policy and education globally.

"Gay Jewish Doctor"?!
Who?

Magnus Hirschfield

Quote :

Magnus Hirschfeld (May 14, 1868 - May 14, 1935) was a German physician and sexologist. An outspoken advocate for sexual minorities, Hirschfeld founded the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, which Dustin Goltz called "the first advocacy for homosexual and transgender rights."[1]

In 1919, under the more liberal atmosphere of the newly founded Weimar Republic, Hirschfeld purchased a villa not far from the Reichstag building for his new Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Research) in Berlin. His Institute housed his immense library on sex and provided educational services and medical consultations. People from around Europe visited the Institute to gain a clearer understanding of their sexuality.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Racism by Magnus Hirschfield translated by Eden and Cedar Paul.

According to the second edition (1989) of the OED, the earliest known usage of the word "racism" in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American "fascist," Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second usage of the term in English that the OED records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938 – Racism by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis' book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word "racism." In the case of the word "racist" as an adjective, the OED ascribes the first known usage to Hirschfeld himself. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about "racism"?

Racism is largely devoted to a highly polemical "refutation" of some of the main racial ideologies and theories of the 19th and 20th centuries. The writers whom Hirschfeld criticized, aside from his favorite target of the National Socialists themselves, were figures like Arthur de Gobineau, Vacher de La-Pouge, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and others generally denounced today as "pseudo-scientists." In fact, that is an inappropriate term. Some of them were not trying to write as scientists at all but rather as political theorists, while others are better described as pre-scientific writers on race who worked with inadequate information, concepts, methodology, and terminology. While Hirschfeld may have been correct in rejecting their more egregious errors, his sneering at them for these mistakes is rather like ridiculing Copernicus and Kepler because they continued to accept some erroneous ideas from medieval astronomy.

Even when Hirschfeld is right in his critique of the early race theorists, it is often because he has chosen easy targets. His "refutation" of "racism" is largely centered on irrelevant common-places that even extreme exponents of racial differences might readily acknowledge – that all human beings are part of the same species and can interbreed, that blood transfusions can take place between races, that "there is no such thing as a pure race," that the races are identical in the vast majority of physical characteristics, that cephalic index is not a meaningful measurement of intelligence or character, etc. Yet his "scientific" evidence is often merely anecdotal or simply his own opinion asserted as unquestioned truth.

In another section, he recounts the names of those he considers the 70 most outstanding figures in world history and announces that "all such lists, when made without bias, will show that persons of genius and persons of outstanding talent are not set apart from the ruck by any colour of their eyes, by a peculiar shape of the skull or the nose, by any 'ethnological' characteristics whatever. What is decisive in human beings is not race but individuality." It does not seem to occur to Hirschfeld that all but about 8 or 9 of the 70 world-historical figures on his list are white Europeans. There are no Negroes and only two Asians (Confucius and Sun Yat Sen).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Vanitas wrote:

But let's not be too hasty. This behavior of the Jews is probably the reason why Hitler created the Final Solution. He realized it was futile trying to eliminate them by destroying their businesses and property, they'd only pop back up somewhere else. They had to be physically destroyed.

This behavior is-was legal. Everyone had this option. Transactions occurred voluntarily, not through force.
The German people only have themselves to blame for making bad economic decisions. Voluntarily trading
without understanding what good or service they were getting involved in. It's also due to their inadequacy
in market competition. The end result was a mindless German collective with a sense of entitlement since
they lost all their assets to Bankers (Jews). Instead of adapting, evolving, they destroy. It's very easy to
destroy, it's a lot harder to create.

I agree, that bit about the Jews creating a Matrix was a bit tongue in cheek.

I think you've touched on the crux of what Hitler was about, he was a destroyer not a creator. Nazism was inherently nihilistic, it's ultimate goal the destruction of the German people, because in Hitler's own estimation they were not good enough for his delusional utopia.

Bingo!!!

The German people had already become decadent and weak....that the Jews had managed to gain control over them spoke of this decline.
Hitler wanted to achieve two goals with one war: To annihilate the masses of Germans he considered inferior and, at the same time, annihilate the source of the infection: the Judeo-Christian source.

So, you see, that Heidegger was attracted to the idea is not accidental and not some consequence of a lapse in reason....and Heidegger's connection to Nietzsche speaks of a connection to Hitler which most today try to deny.

The relationship of Heidegger with Hitler and Nazism is comparable to that of Evola with Mussolini with Fascism.

Both must have been a bit disillusioned with the two lesser men as Hitler and Mussolini didn't have the depth of understanding and so were superficial and vulgar in their tactics and they eventually failed.

Why are conservatives so prone to conspiracy theories?

My guess would be that they lack the critical thinking skills to look at what is right in front of their noses. Conspiracy theories simplify everything. Actually looking at our system as a complex cumulation built by people just like us is a little too complicated.

Perhaps the drink is the source of my fearlessness here, but the best point I've seen on this was made on an episode of Judging Amy by Tyne Daly's character:

She, as a social worker, had to go into house that the children of a militia-type mom who had been taken away had barricaded themselves in. When she got in there, the oldest of the children explained this complex conspiracy going on based on something like the World Bank and the United Nations. Her response was as articulate as any I could come up with:

I just don't think it's that organized. But then, that's what makes it really scary.

The bigger problem here is that talk about the World Bank distracts from the fact that we have corporate entities that have no need to to be loyal to any country or democracy.

In fact, what is in their best interest is the erosion of those democracies.

And this isn't a conspiracy theory. It's what is right in front of our noses. It's the logic of Capitalism.

mindern wrote:

Vanitas wrote:

But let's not be too hasty. This behavior of the Jews is probably the reason why Hitler created the Final Solution. He realized it was futile trying to eliminate them by destroying their businesses and property, they'd only pop back up somewhere else. They had to be physically destroyed.

This behavior is-was legal. Everyone had this option. Transactions occurred voluntarily, not through force.
The German people only have themselves to blame for making bad economic decisions. Voluntarily trading
without understanding what good or service they were getting involved in. It's also due to their inadequacy
in market competition. The end result was a mindless German collective with a sense of entitlement since
they lost all their assets to Bankers (Jews). Instead of adapting, evolving, they destroy. It's very easy to
destroy, it's a lot harder to create.

Really? So the debt and financial pressures imposed on them by the conditions of their surrender in WW1 had nothing to do with it?

Hyper-inflation that occurred while they were trying to pay off their debt had nothing to do with it? Perhaps you cult members might consider actually looking at the history of it.

One of the ultimate hypocrisies that tend to come out of the extreme supporters of the market economy is that when you ask them what will happen when certain people accumulate capital to the point of having the power to fix things to the point where nothing can challenge that power, you argue that the market will take care of it. In other words, the market has this god-like quality that will over-ride any excess any individual might come to. But, when it comes to the less successful, then it becomes an issue of free will.

Now which is it? Either the invisible hand has the power to over-ride any excess of the extremely rich; in which case it has the power to over-ride the efforts of the less fortunate individual. Or it actually lacks this power in which case the interests of the more powerful individual who has created wealth will over-ride the efforts of the less fortunate individual.

Now some of you will say:

It doesn't really matter. That's just the way things would be and should.

To which I would only respond:

Make sure you're still singing heil Hitler when you're standing on a barrel with a rope around your neck. It will make it all that easier to kick it out from under you.

There comes a point at which reason fails, gentlemen.

Then it's just a matter of who wins by force.

I'd like to see anyone of you stupid little pussies in your dog eat dog world getting car jacked and whining:

why?

You're nothing but a bunch of wanna-bes.

Satyr fantasies about the the primal world while he resents women for not having one because of evolutionary residuals.

What kind of fucking hypocrisy is that?

d63tark wrote:

Why are conservatives so prone to conspiracy theories?

In my experience it's liberals who indulge in that kind of crap.

Conservatives wish to retain their nature and culture, rather than piss it all away on utopian ideals and the opportunity to make a quick buck in some Third World shit hole.

Remember that the world is dominated by liberal capitalism.

d63tark wrote:

The bigger problem here is that talk about the World Bank distracts from the fact that we have corporate entities that have no need to to be loyal to any country or democracy.

In fact, what is in their best interest is the erosion of those democracies.

And this isn't a conspiracy theory. It's what is right in front of our noses. It's the logic of Capitalism.

It's not a problem. You just don't understand the concept of private property. Or maybe you do, but you have no respect for it, in which case you'll be responded in kind.

d63tark wrote:

in which case it has the power to over-ride the efforts of the less fortunate individual.

Explain what you wrote there ^

d63tark wrote:

Why are conservatives so prone to conspiracy theories?

My guess would be that they lack the critical thinking skills to look at what is right in front of their noses. Conspiracy theories simplify everything. Actually looking at our system as a complex cumulation built by people just like us is a little too complicated.

How self-flattering.

No need to know you as you paint yourself thoroughly.

Here's an alternative:
Perhaps the conservative more masculine drive for order seeks to explain all phenomena without resorting to emotional means.....or they know far too much about how the world actually works rather than how it is supposed to work in an ideal reality that they try to find the human factor beneath all "coincidences".

boy wrote:

You're nothing but a bunch of wanna-bes.

Perhaps...but then that would make you a nobody content to be just that.

Here is where you express your inability to even reach my level let alone challenge it:

boy wrote:

Satyr fantasies about the the primal world while he resents women for not having one because of evolutionary residuals.

Of course resorting to the usual "you hate women" or "you are afraid of women" or "you are sexually repressed" can be added to "you hate blacks".

I would say women are the very manifestation of the "primal" which Socrates explained as having to be controlled, like man controls all forces of nature, with technologies. Marriage is such a technology.

"Liberals" expose themselves as being the true conservatives as they wish to conserve the primal structures which they've selectively idolized as being "pure", lacking in all those nasty human behaviors such as promiscuity, greed, hate, violence, rape etc....a cleaned up reinterpretation of the past (nature) so as to preserve their identity as "protectors of nature"...which they prefer to keep in cages and within natural preserves.

boy wrote:

What kind of fucking hypocrisy is that?

The kind reflected back to you in your own mind.

Vanitas wrote:

d63tark wrote:

Why are conservatives so prone to conspiracy theories?

In my experience it's liberals who indulge in that kind of crap.

Conservatives wish to retain their nature and culture

Why are they so pro-corporation then? Corporations destroy both of these when it suits their purposes, which is much of the time. Culture gets in the way of products and nature can be transformed into them. They mean nothing to the corporate machine. Yet, conservatives primarily only notice big government - which of course was brought to you by, yes, big corporations.

Kovacs wrote:

Why are they so pro-corporation then? Corporations destroy both of these when it suits their purposes, which is much of the time. Culture gets in the way of products and nature can be transformed into them. They mean nothing to the corporate machine. Yet, conservatives primarily only notice big government - which of course was brought to you by, yes, big corporations.

This depends upon what you mean by corporations destroying nature. In my country corporations provide maintenance funding to sites of historical importance and natural beauty. All the culturally important areas of my country are conservative and rich. It's the urban shitholes filed with white trash and blacks that have no culture beyond junk food, sex, TV and drugs.

Whenever you get into the upper echelons of the corporate world, you find people educated in the best universities, having the most developed tastes, enjoying the richest kind of cultural experience on offer and having a deep respect for it.

If you're talking about corporations destroying non-Western cultures then I'm sorry you won't find much sympathy from me. Outside of Europe I see very little living culture worth preserving.

Quote :

Whenever you get into the upper echelons of the corporate world, you find people educated in the best universities, having the most developed tastes, enjoying the richest kind of cultural experience on offer and having a deep respect for it.

Are you trolling? Is Patrick Bateman a sophisticated hero in your world?

For the discussion, I think we have to distinguish between conservative and conservative. Most of the pro-corporation stuff I see comes from mainstream conservatives; but the public debate of all issues has been completely homogenized, creating what looks to me like a liberalized goop. (That's a reason why Vanitas' assertion is so ridiculous: these people going through "the best" (i.e. highest status) universities all exist as a part of this goop.)

I think you'll find that most of these pro-corporation "conservatives" are essentially, even if they throw up some meek objections, pro-fag, largely egalitarian, etc. In the west, dissent on these issues (especially race and fag stuff) will bar your from any mainstream audience.

More authentic conservatism (which basically exists in books and on the internet - for American conservatism see [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] recognizes plenty of problems with "big business" (i.e. English-language stuff like Paul Gottfried and criticisms of the "managerial state").