GENIUS FORUMS

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote: Yet mere irritation disturbs this awareness for you.

It does for those who haven't yet mastered the knack of maintaining perfect awareness.

Irritation is not the real problem then, it's your personal inability to maintain perfect awareness whilst being irritated that's the problem.

Irritation is a product of an already disturbed awareness. So it isn't a question of a particular individual's abilities or inabilities. Irritation is, by its very nature, an expression of ignorance.

-

Carl G wrote:Lydia,

Did you really not understand or are you being trite?

I didn't understand. What do you mean by, "it is wealth who has first rejected him"?

I was referring to the failure to achieve the wealth that might otherwise lead one in a different direction.

Kelly Jones wrote:Yes, I've been noticing more spelling mistakes lately in my writing. I'm less pedantic than I used to be about small details. But the thinking and structure of the sentences is clearer, which is what matters.

Ironically, it was the structure I was pointing out and not the spelling error. Your attempt to clarify it did not do it for me, either.

Kelly Jones wrote:Enjoyment indicates attachment.

Do you get any satisfaction ie. enjoyment, out of seeking enlightenment? If enlightenment is the elimination of all enjoyment, what's the attraction? Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose?

Kelly Jones wrote:What about thinking and arriving at truthful conclusions? Is that possible in your book?

Why, yes...yes it is. It's right here in my book on page 166. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen for very many. Most delude themselves. If they think that making their way in today's society is difficult, what chance have they got making it to sagedom?

Kelly Jones wrote: Laird isn't a philosopher, Lydiia. He's a lonely person with a mental illness.

I don't understand what prompted this, but if it were true, it may very well characterize quite a few people around philosophy boards to one extent or another. The number grows exponentially based on how many of these same people describe one another. I'm just here for the free coffee and Danish.

Kelly Jones wrote:Anyone who desires wealth (social power) is not a philosopher, but a person seeking happiness foremost. By the same notion, most thinking persons are poor because they reject society as it is.

Agreed. My point all along has been that the decision to reject society often comes after being chewed up by it. It is rare for one to become "a thinker" after achieving some measure of success.

David Quinn wrote:Indeed. If he doesn't experience true thoughts, and cannot distinguish between true thoughts and false thoughts, then he would be deluding himself.

There is no apparent difference in the minds of an enlightened person and a psychopath who believes he is enlightened. We have seen many examples of the latter very successfully recruiting disciples. Indeed, one can be merely delusional (as far as his attainment of Ultimate Truth) and not otherwise psychotic in any other facet of his personalty. This, to me, is the more dangerous of the two false modes. They are more difficult to detect and may lead astray far more victims.

Steven Coyle wrote:Lydiia's idea of wealth is her feminine allure

Sir, do you flirt with me? <bats eyelashes and fans herself>

.


Lydiia writes:
There is no apparent difference in the minds of an enlightened person and a psychopath who believes he is enlightened. We have seen many examples of the latter very successfully recruiting disciples. Indeed, one can be merely delusional (as far as his attainment of Ultimate Truth) and not otherwise psychotic in any other facet of his personality. This, to me, is the more dangerous of the two false modes. They are more difficult to detect and may lead astray far more victims.

-tomas-
Thought to make of note of this gem and comment later.

Need a bit o' time to let this sink in..

Very heavy.



.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:

Carl G wrote: I didn't understand. What do you mean by, "it is wealth who has first rejected him"?

I was referring to the failure to achieve the wealth that might otherwise lead one in a different direction.

So when you said, "Of course, an "enlightened" person rejects the notion of wealth. But the vast majority of the time, it is wealth who has first rejected him", in plain English it would be "a person rejects the notion of wealth after he fails to achieve wealth."

Yes, I agree that is sometimes so, "enlightened" or not. I don't think, though, that those who fail at the money game tend to then settle for the knowledge game, so to speak, as you imply. I think the thirst for philosophic or spiritual knowledge is manifest generally from an early age, and it is due to this that those people fail to prioritize money-making. I know that is the case with me.

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Indeed. If he doesn't experience true thoughts, and cannot distinguish between true thoughts and false thoughts, then he would be deluding himself.

There is no apparent difference in the minds of an enlightened person and a psychopath who believes he is enlightened.

There is a difference - namely, understanding.

We have seen many examples of the latter very successfully recruiting disciples. Indeed, one can be merely delusional (as far as his attainment of Ultimate Truth) and not otherwise psychotic in any other facet of his personalty. This, to me, is the more dangerous of the two false modes. They are more difficult to detect and may lead astray far more victims.

An expert physicist and an uneducated child might both think they understand quantum mechanics, but the delusion of the latter doesn't have any bearing on the understanding enjoyed by the former.

When a person has a genuine understanding of truth, it makes no difference to him what psychopaths claim or don't claim. His own individual understanding, which is rational, direct and immediate, supercedes everything else.

-

David Quinn wrote:An expert physicist and an uneducated child might both think they understand quantum mechanics, but the delusion of the latter doesn't have any bearing on the understanding enjoyed by the former.

How can any one individual know for certain which of these two individuals s/he most resembles?

David Quinn wrote:When a person has a genuine understanding of truth, it makes no difference to him what psychopaths claim or don't claim. His own individual understanding, which is rational, direct and immediate, supercedes everything else.

I bet plenty of psychopaths say exactly the same thing. Of course, they don't think they're the psychopath.

Lydiia Knightjoy,

Agreed. My point all along has been that the decision to reject society often comes after being chewed up by it. It is rare for one to become "a thinker" after achieving some measure of success.

This actually isn’t true in all cases. With myself, I have many innate business skills that I used to deploy as a teenager to make large sums of money, sometimes in slightly dishonest ways. I had no moral compass, so I used to buy and sell everything as a teenager, and it was no exaggeration to say that I always carried around large amounts of cash, and I used to lend a percentage of my profits to my brother and a few of his friends who would pay me back on scheduled dates with interest and additional favors, such as protection from bullies, and other competitors in what I used to hustle. This sort of business sense came naturally, and i didn't have to learn it, and I could have been very successful, but as I studied philosophy, I realized that the many ways that I could have been successful conflicted with my newly formed intuition of what moderation, honestly, balance, sanity and respect for others and myself essentially are.

My interest in philosophy essentially stopped me from behaving like a total tyrant. I remember there was a moment in my life where I remember passing my brother a wad full of hundreds, and he smiled, saying, “you know Ryan, you really are a Jew, but you’re still a swell guy in my book, or something like that” Moments like that changed me…as I started to wonder what he meant. How was I like a Jew? What the hell is a Jew anyway?

Success often entails whoring yourself and others out to very undesirable and excessive activities. To be successful in a material sense, one often has to whore out the body/mind of oneself and of others in a very aggressive manner. However, it is possible to be successful and retain some degree of integrity, but the opportunities are very small, and most people in that position were either born into wealth or position based on the foundations that family had established for them. However, even these individuals often resort to unethical business practices, despite their established degree of wealth.

The soul of an unenlightened man is a lot like an out of control hurricane; it consumes everything in its wake, and destroys itself in the process.

And he escapes from the daily stress and drudgery by indulging in drugs, sex, big manly toys, vacations, golf, marriage, having children, buying a puppy, or whatever else can temporally relieve the man’s feeling that he has sold out his soul to the almighty dollar.

A man’s solution to enslavement is usually more enslavement. And if you suggest a philosophy of minimalism or Less is more, they look at you as if you are totally insane....meanwhile they have stress pimples breaking out on their face, they can't sleep at night because of their bills, and they are working seven days a week to pay for all their possessions and habits.... hmmm, I wonder what is actually insane?

Lydiia -

Just the facts, ma'am. Give Quinn some of that, he kinda needed some attention yesterday.

:-|

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Lydiia Knightjoy,

Agreed. My point all along has been that the decision to reject society often comes after being chewed up by it. It is rare for one to become "a thinker" after achieving some measure of success.

This actually isn’t true in all cases. With myself, I have many innate business skills that I used to deploy as a teenager to make large sums of money, sometimes in slightly dishonest ways. I had no moral compass, so I used to buy and sell everything as a teenager, and it was no exaggeration to say that I always carried around large amounts of cash, and I used to lend a percentage of my profits to my brother and a few of his friends who would pay me back on scheduled dates with interest and additional favors, such as protection from bullies, and other competitors in what I used to hustle. This sort of business sense came naturally, and i didn't have to learn it, and I could have been very successful, but as I studied philosophy, I realized that the many ways that I could have been successful conflicted with my newly formed intuition of what moderation, honestly, balance, sanity and respect for others and myself essentially are.

My interest in philosophy essentially stopped me from behaving like a total tyrant. I remember there was a moment in my life where I remember passing my brother a wad full of hundreds, and he smiled, saying, “you know Ryan, you really are a Jew, but you’re still a swell guy in my book, or something like that” Moments like that changed me…as I started to wonder what he meant. How was I like a Jew? What the hell is a Jew anyway?

Success often entails whoring yourself and others out to very undesirable and excessive activities. To be successful in a material sense, one often has to whore out the body/mind of oneself and of others in a very aggressive manner. However, it is possible to be successful and retain some degree of integrity, but the opportunities are very small, and most people in that position were either born into wealth or position based on the foundations that family had established for them. However, even these individuals often resort to unethical business practices, despite their established degree of wealth.

The soul of an unenlightened man is a lot like an out of control hurricane; it consumes everything in its wake, and destroys itself in the process.

And he escapes from the daily stress and drudgery by indulging in drugs, sex, big manly toys, vacations, golf, marriage, having children, buying a puppy, or whatever else can temporally relieve the man’s feeling that he has sold out his soul to the almighty dollar.

A man’s solution to enslavement is usually more enslavement. And if you suggest a philosophy of minimalism or Less is more, they look at you as if you are totally insane....meanwhile they have stress pimples breaking out on their face, they can't sleep at night because of their bills, and they are working seven days a week to pay for all their possessions and habits.... hmmm, I wonder what is actually insane?

Some jewels here by Ryan, will comment later.

.

LK said,

You may argue that they weren't particularly successful because they were too principled, to which I would say that strict principles don't necessarily stand in the way of at least moderate success.

You were not talking about moderate success, but high success, which is the case for CEOs.

I have attained moderate success, and have not had to compromise my principles. But if I wanted to climb high up the corporate ladder, at some point I would be required to compromise both principles and values. I get criticized a lot by family and friends for refusing to seek wealth, btw.

-

Shahrazad wrote:LK said,

You may argue that they weren't particularly successful because they were too principled, to which I would say that strict principles don't necessarily stand in the way of at least moderate success.

You were not talking about moderate success, but high success, which is the case for CEOs.

I have attained moderate success, and have not had to compromise my principles. But if I wanted to climb high up the corporate ladder, at some point I would be required to compromise both principles and values. I get criticized a lot by family and friends for refusing to seek wealth, btw.

-

That makes them sound ungrateful, Shah. I have so much respect for your decisions not to compromise in that way that I really don't have the right words to convey it.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:This actually isn’t true in all cases. With myself, I have many innate business skills that I used to deploy as a teenager to make large sums of money, sometimes in slightly dishonest ways. I had no moral compass, so I used to buy and sell everything as a teenager, and it was no exaggeration to say that I always carried around large amounts of cash, and I used to lend a percentage of my profits to my brother and a few of his friends who would pay me back on scheduled dates with interest and additional favors, such as protection from bullies, and other competitors in what I used to hustle. This sort of business sense came naturally, and i didn't have to learn it, and I could have been very successful, but as I studied philosophy, I realized that the many ways that I could have been successful conflicted with my newly formed intuition of what moderation, honestly, balance, sanity and respect for others and myself essentially are.

Sounds like you were selling pot. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

brokenhead wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:This actually isn’t true in all cases. With myself, I have many innate business skills that I used to deploy as a teenager to make large sums of money, sometimes in slightly dishonest ways. I had no moral compass, so I used to buy and sell everything as a teenager, and it was no exaggeration to say that I always carried around large amounts of cash, and I used to lend a percentage of my profits to my brother and a few of his friends who would pay me back on scheduled dates with interest and additional favors, such as protection from bullies, and other competitors in what I used to hustle. This sort of business sense came naturally, and i didn't have to learn it, and I could have been very successful, but as I studied philosophy, I realized that the many ways that I could have been successful conflicted with my newly formed intuition of what moderation, honestly, balance, sanity and respect for others and myself essentially are.

Sounds like you were selling pot. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Drugs came to mind secondly :-(

Firstly, it was fencing stolen property :-)

A reverse pawn dealer...


.

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:When a person has a genuine understanding of truth, it makes no difference to him what psychopaths claim or don't claim. His own individual understanding, which is rational, direct and immediate, supercedes everything else.

I bet plenty of psychopaths say exactly the same thing. Of course, they don't think they're the psychopath.

Good for them.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:An expert physicist and an uneducated child might both think they understand quantum mechanics, but the delusion of the latter doesn't have any bearing on the understanding enjoyed by the former.

How can any one individual know for certain which of these two individuals s/he most resembles?

As far as quantum physics is concerned, understanding the math and knowing how to devise meaningful experiments that can test the theory would be a good start.

In spiritual matters: By ceasing to rely on assumptions and beliefs. By learning how to distinguish between what can be known with absolute certainty and what can't. By penetrating the core illusion of existence.

In other words, by being fully rational.

-

Brokenhead,

Sounds like you were selling pot. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I sold many things. Whatever someone wanted, I would get it for them. And I didn’t ask questions as to whether it was right or not, there was no discrimination, if the demand was there, I would supply it, I simply thought in terms of where I could find the item for the cheapest price, and how much I could charge as markup to particular people, whether it was pot, cigarettes, alcohol, personalized zippo lighters, musical instruments, magic cards, sports cards, electronics, firecrackers, pot papers, knives, video games, burnt music cds, pornography, and even types of food that the cafeteria didn’t have. However, my acceleration of resourcefulness seemed to be fuelled by an increase of power. A feeling of great power will drive someone to know more, as a means to increase that very power. As a teenager, my young ego was mostly satisfied by megalomania, competition, sexual fantasy, and self-deprecation/sadistic humor. The philosophy didn’t come until later.

Looking back, I took advantage of a lot of naïve people, my unconsciousness caused me to behave like a predator - as there were some people who we’re just trying to be more social, they were trying to be appear to be cool, hip and in fashionable in the eyes of more popular people. Basically, the ones with the most teenage insecurity and social awkwardness received the worst treatment, as far as overcharging on items is concerned.

For instance: there was this one Indian kid who I ripped off a lot. He was the type of kid who suffered from severe social insecurity, and whenever we talked, I’d joke around with him, be nice, and he sensed a certain confidence in me, a certain openness, I’d be overly buddy-buddy with him because I sensed his nervousness, but he always left feeling good about himself, and I intuitively sensed that the emotions is what he was looking for, not the products, he was basically the type of kid that couldn’t figure out how to be social in a superficial way, so it wasn’t so much that he wanted to buy anything, it was just a desire to not feel so insecure and awkward socially, he also wanted to tell people that he bought something from me, and that him and I joked around, were friends, and so I knew that he was buying a feeling, not a product, which scores the highest sum of money of all to the unconscious tyrant, and so I unconsciously exploited this tendency to its fullest capacity. I sold him items at 250% markup of what they would have been worth if I had paid anything for them for them in the first place.

And why am I going into all this? Well, first of all, I think the psychology is very interesting, as most psychology texts would never reveal this sort of subtle detail as far as the darkness of human nature is concerned. And the psychology illustrates how early success in a male can eventually lead him to eventually seek out philosophy. However, It wasn’t the guilt or karma that caused me to search out wisdom, it was the allure of power. My ego basically lost the mental satisfaction of deriving power through buying and selling, I felt bored with it after a while, so I moved on to attempting to derive power from science in the academic world, which I didn’t finish because the entire structure was counter intuitive to how my mind easily learns new things, but the philosophy courses I took as electives were the only thing that kept my interest, despite the professor’s inherent flaws.

Overall, my early motivations as a spiritual seeker were actually quite complicated; it was a combination of the will to power, the desire to secure a mate, an inquisitiveness/openness about philosophy in general, and a desire to be the best/most moral/most intelligent. And some of those desires conflicted with each other - such as my desire to secure a mate combined with my desire to be the best/most moral/most intelligent.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I sold many things. Whatever someone wanted, I would get it for them. And I didn’t ask questions as to whether it was right or not

Could you also get guns and such. Seems like you were well on course to be a gangster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL9ihXiFAko

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Yes, I've been noticing more spelling mistakes lately in my writing. I'm less pedantic than I used to be about small details. But the thinking and structure of the sentences is clearer, which is what matters.

Ironically, it was the structure I was pointing out and not the spelling error. Your attempt to clarify it did not do it for me, either.

When people act, it usually comes from their decisions, which comes from values.

Actions are obviously always changing; people are doing lots of superficially different things all the time. At one moment, they are eating, the next moment, not eating. There is superficial change.

Underlying all these (apparently) changing behaviours are the same, unchanging values. So, to get some real change into people's behaviours, the values have to change.

It is not so easy to change values. If a person is satisfied and happy with animal values (shelter, food, sex), they will be very uncomfortable with human values (reason, truth, thinking).

Kelly: Enjoyment indicates attachment.

Lydiia: Do you get any satisfaction ie. enjoyment, out of seeking enlightenment?

Yes, I am imperfect. There is no way a person can jump from delusion (attachment) to non-attachment. So it is a process of choosing more intelligent attachments.

If enlightenment is the elimination of all enjoyment, what's the attraction?

I should make it clear that enlightenment is not hatred of enjoyment, which is really another kind of enjoyment.

The attraction is initially the enjoyment in wondering about Nature and truth. A person gets a kick out of feeling special and unique, with an extraordinary secret about his mental life. If they actually get more satisfaction out of truth and reasoning, rather than feeling powerful and special, then they'll be attracted to wisdom. There is a real dynamic of decreasing attachment as one continues on the path of truth. The more one sacrifices untruths, the less that attachment (which is founded on untruth) becomes the driving motivation.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose?

Nothing at all to gain or lose.

Kelly: What about thinking and arriving at truthful conclusions? Is that possible in your book?

Lydiia: Why, yes...yes it is. It's right here in my book on page 166. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen for very many. Most delude themselves. If they think that making their way in today's society is difficult, what chance have they got making it to sagedom?

If one tries to adjust to an insane way of thinking and behaving, then there is less chance of sagedom.

Kelly: Laird isn't a philosopher, Lydiia. He's a lonely person with a mental illness.

Lydiia: I don't understand what prompted this,

You stated something to the effect that philosophers do not reject society but actually desire to be wealthy and accepted, and become philosophers only when society rejects them and forces them into poverty. I assumed you were using Laird (or those like him) as proof.

but if it were true, it may very well characterize quite a few people around philosophy boards to one extent or another. The number grows exponentially based on how many of these same people describe one another. I'm just here for the free coffee and Danish.

Many people get a bitter happiness out of being misfits, and have a 'philosophy' of speaking the truth in order to exact revenge for their outcast status. These people are in danger of digging themselves into serious mental illnesses, if not suiciding, because of their deep need for happiness.

Kelly: Anyone who desires wealth (social power) is not a philosopher, but a person seeking happiness foremost. By the same notion, most thinking persons are poor because they reject society as it is.

Lydiia: Agreed. My point all along has been that the decision to reject society often comes after being chewed up by it. It is rare for one to become "a thinker" after achieving some measure of success.

From my experience, the greatest philosophers - Kierkegaard, the Buddha, Jesus, Nietzsche, Hui Neng, Hakuin, and Weininger - had the ability to succeed in society. They often had a deep understanding about human psychology, science and the environment, politics and government, nutrition and body-care, music, art, and literature. It's my belief that what stopped them developing those talents into worldly successes was wisdom. They would have realised all these 'successes' would mislead their students into forming unintelligent attachments.

Lydiaa to David wrote:There is no apparent difference in the minds of an enlightened person and a psychopath who believes he is enlightened.

Only to the unenlightened does this appear.

We have seen many examples of the latter very successfully recruiting disciples. Indeed, one can be merely delusional (as far as his attainment of Ultimate Truth) and not otherwise psychotic in any other facet of his personalty. This, to me, is the more dangerous of the two false modes. They are more difficult to detect and may lead astray far more victims.

The only solution is for people to be wise, and able to detect falsehood.

Maestro,

Could you also get guns and such. Seems like you were well on course to be a gangster.

I think teenagers are drawn to the ‘gangster’ persona because they have identify issues. As a teenager, I never identified with the ‘gangster’ persona very strongly, probably because I thought the wardrobe was a little over the top and retarded. My aesthetic sensibility gravitated towards more of a clean-cut regular bloke attire. Blue Jeans, black shoes, a golf shirt, and a clean haircut were always more of my thing. Moreover, the point of revealing what my former self was like as a teenager was to illustrate how success is usually made from exploiting the stupidity of others, resulting in high profits for yourself, while increasing the workload for others.

Basically, when my brother labeled me a jew, he was basically saying that I had become an expert at profiting immensely off the stupidity, ignorance, vices, and gullibility of others. Furthermore, I basically learned very quickly that if I didn’t indulge in the products that I was selling that I could maximize my profits yields. So I was disciplined in the sense that I didn’t want to consume my profit margins, but at that point of my life, I wasn’t reasoning whether or not it was right or wrong, only how much extra profit could be yielded by refraining to consume what I sold.

The difference between the ‘gangster’ persona and an actual successful business mind is that the ‘gangster’ is usually lower in cleverness/intelligence, and he consumes his profits as fast or faster than they come in. He has issues with drugs, women, and self-worth and so on. On the contrary, a person with keen business sense suspends his immediate desires for egotistical gratification, while investing all this profit margins into making his business bigger. That is what I admire about guys like Warren Buffet, as much of their fortunes have been made as honestly as possible, by reinvesting their profits back into their companies to make their products better, or to simply expand the scope of the business itself.

The humor of gangster rap is that the product is based on a huge lie – as the ‘gangster’ usually sings about being a millionaire, and having lots of women even before he makes any money, he usually rents a limo, and women dancers, but struggles to pay the debt off until his album start selling, so his flashy show is designed to bewitch teenagers into buying his crappy music, thus making him a millionaire. I can’t think of anything more idiotic than that in the business world. It is one of the biggest scams out there. Most music is actually, anyone who spends money on music is getting ripped off in my opinion.

Ryan,

Moreover, the point of revealing what my former self was like as a teenager was to illustrate how success is usually made from exploiting the stupidity of others, resulting in high profits for yourself, while increasing the workload for others.

I have noticed that this is the case for people of lower intelligence, who are ambitious but can't succeed by providing society with anything of value, so they resort to ripping others off.

As a young person, I was very confident in my ability to make money, and the thought of ripping others off never crossed my mind. I was never able to go into sales, because a salesmen needs to have a deceptive nature; I did not have one and refused to develop one.

I may have forgotten to say that none of the money I have earned has been made by ripping people off. I have no respect for people that do so; stupidity is no excuse.

-

Ryan writes:

"Basically, when my brother labeled me a Jew, he was basically saying that I had become an expert at profiting immensely off the stupidity, ignorance, vices, and gullibility of others."

I don't think that is an accurate assessment (of what your brother really meant).

With some exceptions, I have noted that most Jewish business and Jewish business persons, most always offer a solid product, with good back-up, professionalism, etc., and their success comes about because they do business in this way. Historically, all throughout the diaspora and right up through today, Jews have always been a powerful sector in business because they have the will and the desire to do so. Even in Jewish-told histories, Jewish historians recognize that Jewish avarice is a real thing, but again they achieve success through offering good products. Because of Jews international connections (family and social links from one Jewish community and another, often far-flung) it was always natural that Jews operate internationally, adding to their business strength.

In the most miserable periods of the diaspora, when Jews were reduced to impoverished circumstances, through exclusion, oppression, laws, etc., there really were wretched Jews, dishonest, conniving, uneducated, ignorant, etc. You can find that sort of shtetl-Jew in some of Israel Zangwill's stories. Oscar Wilde, in Portrait of Dorian Grey, refers to the 'wretched Jew' who ran a low-end theatre in London, and he likely was wretched.

In the world that I live in, I don't see too many 'wretched Jews', and the Jews I know who have businesses always focus on excellence, quality of product and service, etc.

You will still find, though, remnants of the 'wretched Jew' whose self-image has been molded by a dysfunctional relationship with Gentile culture. You could call it a 'carpet-bagger syndrome'.

Alex,

The historic ‘Jew’ of old invented the successful occupation of ‘money lender’ in Europe after the English banned them from owning land, this is because they often developed the land with no regard for the peasants working it. And they networked together so well that they often kept the British out of the loop totally. And even though the English gentry were guilty of corruption, their ideals that they were supposed to live up to were designed to be a bit more fair to the peasant worker. It could be argued that the jews of that period sought to maximize profits regardless of consequence or outcome. The English gentlemen was supposed to manage the peasants in the best way they could, with the highest ideals possible, but the jews of the period did not subscribe to British ideology. However, present day jews are probably not as Machiavellian as their ancestors, but that is what the term often refers to when it is used in a vulgar context.

Although, you can see the same sort of behavior occurring in Israel, where the government power continues to steal land, while ignoring international protest for the last 30 years, and they continue to bulldoze the homes of the Palestinians, as they develop it economically, and give it to their own race. As they believe they have a biblical claim to the land, while so do the Palestinians. In my opinion, the Palestinians have more of a legal claim to much of the stolen land than the Jews. Moreover, Israel also refuses to share fresh water aquifers in a fair manner with the Palestinians. All and all, the inability of the Jews and the Palestinians to go beyond race and religious ideology will probably be responsible a larger global conflict. However, one could argue that the excessive greed of the Jews will be one of the MAJOR causes.

Shahrazad

I have noticed that this is the case for people of lower intelligence, who are ambitious but can't succeed by providing society with anything of value, so they resort to ripping others off.

My point is that it is usually those with the most knowledge that can exploit those with no knowledge. I’ve seen individuals who provide society with practical goods, but they also exploit certain individuals just for the reason that they lack knowledge. And they justify it in a Machiavellian sense by saying to themselves, well, those people were stupid, they deserved to be ripped off. Often, the schemer has a deep-seated hatred of stupidity that he uses to justify his exploitation. And you’d be surprised how much ‘success’ is based on this sort of behavior.

.


The Jewish diaspora: Rome (many photos)

http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaspora/rome.html

...........


Livius: Articles on Ancient History

http://www.livius.org/catalogue.html




.