GENIUS FORUMS

This thread is spawned by Tomas' reply in another thread mentioning Prescott Bush, grandfather of the US's current President and knowing business partner to Hitler, as well as knowing beneficiary of slave labor at Auschwitz for mining in Poland, invested that money in Texas energy - and we followed that money trail in another thread, as well as the Bush in charge of WTC security right up until the day the twin towers got hit and the other WTC building mysteriously collapsed... Why does the general American public not know about this? Why are students taught about all the details of the Peloponesian War and The Battle of the Bulge as if those were the most important things in history when more pertinent history could be helpful to people in real life? Every child does not need to know battle tactics.

I recall wondering why I needed to know this stuff they were teaching in history, and I'm sure other students wondered the same thing. If schools taught stuff that was pertinent to life, maybe kids would take more interest in it.

Does anybody know how to tackle the problem of what they teach in the schools?

I don't believe the case of Prescott Bush was such an exception at the time in the financial world but here's an interesting article in the Guardian: How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power, including some details on a recent initiated civil action against the Bush family for damages being brought in Germany by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz.

The support for Word War 2 and Jews in the US and Britain was not a clear cut case anyway. America had to be 'dragged' into the war. Some people wanted to leave Hitler alone and Jews were frowned upon on most continents already. See also:
Pre-WW2 Churchill article says Jews partly to blame for anti-Semitism

According to the Marvin Bush entry in Wikipedia he was not listed as shareholder anymore "by the end of 2000". Let alone "in charge of WTC security" as claimed in the post above. Any quality references, Elizabeth?

Elizabeth, I’m more interested in your desire to demonize George Bush, when the fact remains that your average bloke walking down the street is just as irrational as George Bush is. It is counterproductive to demonize particular individuals without addressing the overwhelming irrationality of the whole. The reason for this is that ignorant people need these conspiracy theories, and exciting demonizing labels to take the attention away from their own irrationality.

Impersonal, and universal psychological tendencies is what should be taught in schools, whereas focusing on the trivial details of insignificant people just seems like juicy gossip to me. And quite frankly, there is enough of that sort of nonsense already floating around the hallways.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Does anybody know how to tackle the problem of what they teach in the schools?

Why? Why does it need to be tackled?

There is an agenda. It is set forth by those in power. The herd is pawn to this power. The average person is not in the market for cognizing the program, let alone changing it.

If you raise your voice too loudly you will be killed, by one side or the other.

For the sake of truth? Get real.

Carl is absolutely correct. The educational situation will not drastically change nationally or globally until a considerable percentage of the population becomes rational, and a slow osmosis occurs. Moreover, Society is deeply founded on genetically governed feminine notions such as romantic love, emotional enjoyment, ambition, accumulation, and so on, and it is a futile pursuit to try to change the entire system superficially. The individual needs to want to change, and that is not going to happen on mass any time soon, so therefore we are completely powerless to change the educational system of anything. That is why elitist gathering places such as Genius Forum exist in the first place because no school board would ever tolerate the sort of values that are thrown around at GF.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Any quality references, Elizabeth?

There's the catch 22, and you understand how that works. Well. at least I think this is at least as good as wiki.

Anyway, thisvideo follows the Bush money trail.

Carl G wrote:If you raise your voice too loudly you will be killed, by one side or the other.

Funny. In the master's degree program I took, we were required to take a Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator for one of our first classes. The professor was a certified scorer for that assessment (apparently it requires a special certification to score that particular assessment). He had scored our assessments before we started classes and set them aside because he liked to get to know his students and see if he could correctly guess which type we were based on our personalities in class. By the end of the first day he declared to me, in front of the class "I already know what type you are. You're the type that gets shot." When he returned my results as ENTJ, he declared himself correct.

edit - oops, sorry Ryan, I'll respond to yours in a moment.

Ryan,

I have no desire to demonize George Bush. As a Republican, I especially would like to say good things about him. As far as the idea that the average bloke on the street has about an equal amount of rationality/irrationality as George Bush is really probably quite accurate. Actually, that's probably the best thing he has going for him is that underneath it all, he's an average guy. He should be able to understand the average guy because underneath it all, he is one.

Now setting aside the obvious problems of an average guy running one of the biggest military powers in the world, we have to recognize that not only do average guys fall into the nepotism trap, but it's actually encouraged at the top of government (First Lady is actually a position, and it is expected to go to the spouse of the President - although they are saying that if Hilliary becomes President, her daughter may take the position of First Lady). We have the whole Bush family running around in the government because of the nepotism accepted in the system, so we have to look at the ethics of the family unit. Some families actually do operate as a unit, and the Bushes seem to be one of those families.

I agree with you that the whole herd needs to have some rationality groomed into it, but I disagree with you on this one point:

Ryan wrote:
whereas focusing on the trivial details of insignificant people

I hardly consider the President of the United States an insignificant person, however average he may be.

Elizabeth wrote:

I hardly consider the President of the United States an insignificant person, however average he may be.

It depends on the context you use the word ‘insignificance/significance’. You are using the term in the context of political power.

However, the context I’m using it is based on wisdom. Significant people through the context of wisdom would be a Socrates, Buddha, UG Krishnamurti and so on.

George Bush is just the latest cog being turned by coporate powers. And a cog is an insignificant thing because it is not free, it is defined by the parts that influence it, whereas a conscious rational person is totally liberated from such negative forces.

It all depends on how one is using the term. If one values wisdom more than political power, which I do, then significance will be based on the former and not the latter.

Hmmm. If an unwise person set off a nuclear device which wiped out all of the wise people on the planet, would that unwise person still be insignificant in your view?

Elizabeth wrote:

Hmmm. If an unwise person set off a nuclear device which wiped out all of the wise people on the planet, would that unwise person still be insignificant in your view?

yes, that ape-like organisim is totally insignificant, as well as the earth as a whole, when compared to the immensity of an infinite universe. In the eyes of god consciousness, the death of one tiny planet, and one developing ape-species is totally irrelevant. New Universes are formed all the time, and stars continuously manufacture the necessary components to give birth to more life producing planets. The cycle is endless, and there is nothing inherently significant about the human race.

And as for the death of all the wise people on this planet, it doesnt matter when those individuals die anyway because they are operating in a way that is wise anyhow. A wise person is ready to die at age 35, 55, 75 or 105.

Ryan R wrote:However, the context I’m using it is based on wisdom. Significant people through the context of wisdom would be a Socrates, Buddha, UG Krishnamurti and so on.

Ryan R wrote:yes, that ape-like organisim is totally insignificant, as well as the earth as a whole, when compared to the immensity of an infinite universe. In the eyes of god consciousness, the death of one tiny planet, and one developing ape-species is totally irrelevant.

So which is it? Significant or insignificant ape-like organisms like Socrates? And since when does size matter in the context of wisdom?

Ryan R wrote:Elizabeth wrote:

I hardly consider the President of the United States an insignificant person, however average he may be.

It depends on the context you use the word ‘insignificance/significance’. You are using the term in the context of political power.

However, the context I’m using it is based on wisdom. Significant people through the context of wisdom would be a Socrates, Buddha, UG Krishnamurti and so on.

George Bush is just the latest cog being turned by coporate powers. And a cog is an insignificant thing because it is not free, it is defined by the parts that influence it, whereas a conscious rational person is totally liberated from such negative forces.

It all depends on how one is using the term. If one values wisdom more than political power, which I do, then significance will be based on the former and not the latter.

Uhh. That's why you turn to Plato and say, wisdom GUIDES political power. Of course, we must not forget to dismiss his terrible Machiavellian tendencies either, there's always a catch.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Ryan R wrote:However, the context I’m using it is based on wisdom. Significant people through the context of wisdom would be a Socrates, Buddha, UG Krishnamurti and so on.

Ryan R wrote:yes, that ape-like organisim is totally insignificant, as well as the earth as a whole, when compared to the immensity of an infinite universe. In the eyes of god consciousness, the death of one tiny planet, and one developing ape-species is totally irrelevant.

So which is it? Significant or insignificant ape-like organisms like Socrates? And since when does size matter in the context of wisdom?

well said. The fact is that the US presidency and constiution is hi-jacked by Zionism and the Federal Reserve. And it will take a longgg time and alot of crimes for this to end.

Elizbeth wrote:

So which is it? Significant or insignificant ape-like organisms like Socrates? And since when does size matter in the context of wisdom?

you missed my point. The way a wise person lives is significant, but if irrational humans kill them, then this is rather insignificant. The significance was the actual wise life leading up to the death. The ape-like organisms are the deluded ones that lack even a degree of conscious perception.

My other point is that the survival of this particular species really doesn’t matter, as there is an endless supply of organisms that can house consciousness.

And you are still missing my point. My point was that when a statement of yours was pointed out as wrong, you haphazardly redefined the context to try to make yourself "right." When the haphazardness of your redefinition was pointed out, you squirmed again and changed the data pool. When that was pointed out, you actually had the gall to try to present that your point about a proper education of the populace was that it's okay if humans are wiped out because other organisms can house consciousness. Now if I were to get ridiculous, I'd ask how then you would propose these other organisms get a proper education - but I'd rather stay on a more practical level. We still have humans, and they ought to be properly educated.

Now please quit trying to emulate a greased pig by just trying to make yourself "right" at the expense of the topic. If you want to participate, please actually think about the topic at hand.

Elizabeth wrote:

you haphazardly redefined the context to try to make yourself "right."

I didn’t haphazardly redefine; I simply expanded. You fail to realize that any statement can be criticized as incomplete because it is very difficult to make a total thought in one attempt based on a few sentences in which many of the words havent been properly defined. People question based on fizzy areas in a statement, and then it is expanded on until the point becomes clear, and then one can assess the validy of that point, but only then.

That is the nature of creativity.

Now please quit trying to emulate a greased pig by just trying to make yourself "right" at the expense of the topic. If you want to participate, please actually think about the topic at hand.

I thought about it, and I maintain that there is absolutely nothing you can do to profoundly change the educational system, you are merely blowing hot air like a broken air conditioner. Go into any school system, and suggest to the administration that romantic love is dishonest, and that this universal truth should be taught to children, and see what they tell you. Teachers have been fired for lesser things.

You are totally powerless, so stop trying to be a little busy body.

There are good reasons as to why Jesus and Socrates were put to death, their words merely aroused emotional reactions from people until they were killed. Apparently UG Krishnamurti's life was threatened a few times, and all the schools that Jiddu Krishnamurti set up, now only teach watered down versions of his teachings, meaning parts of the teachings that can be interpreted in conventional ways by the ego. That is what happens when one tries to profoundly change the world through outward action, but perhaps the minority that is able to understand truth will slowly grow larger over time through a sort of osmosis, but it wont be due to any particular actions of yours.

Ryan R wrote:You are totally powerless, so stop trying to be a little busy body.

There are good reasons as to why Jesus and Socrates were put to death, their words merely aroused emotional reactions from people until they were killed. Apparently UG Krishnamurti's life was threatened a few times, and all the schools that Jiddu Krishnamurti set up, now only teach watered down versions of his teachings, meaning parts of the teachings that can be interpreted in conventional ways by the ego. That is what happens when one tries to profoundly change the world through outward action, but perhaps the minority that is able to understand truth will slowly grow larger over time through a sort of osmosis, but it wont be due to any particular actions of yours.

I don't quite know what you are trying to accomplish here - is this reverse psychology as an attempt to encourage me to do something, although I'll pretty much have to figure out for myself what to do?

Elizabeth wrote:

I don't quite know what you are trying to accomplish here - is this reverse psychology as an attempt to encourage me to do something, although I'll pretty much have to figure out for myself what to do?

Lets face the facts, you're not going to take any action, We will never hear a news story of Elizabeth Isabelle confronting American School Boards as a means to drastically change the circulum being taught. This is just an entertainment for you.

And even if you did take action, it would be a blundering failure anyhow.

I maintain that is it only a minority of intellectuals that are able to comprehend a portion of the absolute truths. So any outward action to drastically alter the present state of affairs will always end in failure.

Then WTF are we doing here? Thinking will not create a better world all by itself. If everyone thought better, the world would be better - but that isn't going to happen unless enough people put themselves out there as a catalyst for change. It's okay Princess, if all you want to do is imagine the world a better place and not actively contribute to the chain of causality to make it happen, then you can passively contribute by not doing things to prevent wisdom from spreading.

Elizabeth,

Thinking will not create a better world all by itself. If everyone thought better, the world would be better - but that isn't going to happen unless enough people put themselves out there as a catalyst for change.

You cannot think better, all you can do is think, which is part of the problem, thinking and desire run together as playmates, and the desire for a better world is a form of self-deception. Ironically, the desire for change is preventing one from actually changing. To accept ‘what is’ is the beginning of intelligence.

It's okay Princess, if all you want to do is imagine the world a better place and not actively contribute to the chain of causality to make it happen,

Causality is a useful fiction, but it doesn’t actually exist. We divide the totality up into things to give the feel that we actually understand something, but in actuality there is nothing to understand.

then you can passively contribute by not doing things to prevent wisdom from spreading.

Wisdom cannot spread; it is not like a virus. A rational person is a rare occurrence. Almost everyone is not interested in living the type of life that a handful on GF are trying to live.

.

Elizabethian Republicanism :-)

Here's an article from the New York Sun, written up by Sager.

He (Freddie) was the headliner at the annual Prescott Bush Awards Dinner, New Haven, CT (George W's birthplace)


Fred Thompson Goes Nutmeg
http://www.latestpolitics.com/article/40

You can also do a yahoo search by typing in: fred thompson prescott bush

some interesting photos of Prescott Bush Awards Dinner -- latest count of 11 pics...


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

Ah, an impromptu roast.

Elizabeth: I have no desire to demonize George Bush. As a Republican, I especially would like to say good things about him.

Why are you a Republican, and on what basis should George Bush not be demonised?

I cannot fathom how any wise person could be a Republican. To me these words are proof that you are just philosophically play acting .

Jamesh wrote: Why are you a Republican,

I'm a left wing Republican because I believe that people can most easily be motivated into ethical behavior by pulling their purse strings.

Jamesh wrote: and on what basis should George Bush not be demonised?

You don't have to. He did it to himself.

Jamesh wrote:I cannot fathom how any wise person could be a Republican.

Perhaps now you can.

Jamesh wrote: To me these words are proof that you are just philosophically play acting .

I can see how a wise person could pretend to be unwise for a purpose, but I can not imagine how an unwise person could pretend to be any wiser than they are.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Ah, an impromptu roast.

-tomas-
The Republican nominee will be... Fred Thompson-TN. - Ronald Reagan light & the other Free Mason faction.
(and to silence Ron Paul)

(somewhat Rudy Guiliani) -- placate the East Coast mobsters



The Democratic nominee will be... Hillary Rodham-NY. -- Hillary's originally from Cicero County, IL another mobster haven her daddy's pals
(and to silence Barak Obama)

(somewhat Al Gore) -- The Free Mason crowd

Remember - there are two competing factions in Free Masonry.




All the geographic landscape will be in the Veep's. New York, Illinois, Texas, Florida, California.

Whomever wins, the average Joe/Jane loses... again.



Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason

ps - i'll not comment on my faction...




.