. . Subject: Re: Intellectuals Are The Most Dangerous Part Of Humanity . . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... [...] Aha! It's the "intellectuals" who did it. No, all of them. Because they all agree on the same things, they are all evil. Then the obvious solution is: kill them all. That's what the intellectuals would say, right ? It's the 'smart' thing to do ! Actually & unfortunately it is true that 'the intellectuals,' are at fault over many problems in the world, because they ought to be smart enough to do a lot better at economics. But it's the 'non-intellectuals' who make most solutions to problems impossible even if they are proposed, because a) the non-intellectuals never seem to be able to understand how we can do things a lot better (http://www.jhwh.be for example), b) can they even do it, isn't a better world to a degree a world in which people must be more pro-active and less easily swayed by the criminal element, c) the non-intellectuals are very easily manipulated by the criminal "intellectual" sector. For example you see non-intellectuals making up the power base of such people as Musolini, Mao, Hitler, Bush, Obama, etc etc. The sound of reason, it just doesn't penetrate. And that puts many well meaning "intellectuals" off from helping 'the masses,' because the masses won't listen anyway, they won't do it anyway. The masses are busy with beer and football, most of the time, not with finding out what lies the top bosses of society have fomented this week, and how we can overthrow them. What you should by the way not think, is that people at universities are "intellectuals." Most of the time they are not intellectuals at all, but they are people who are payed to work on things normally done by the more intelligent people, or what they'd concern themselves with. But most universities are breeding grounds of jeaulousy and hatred, and to even pass the exam you have to be of mediocre intelligence if you view the content. The content is often very poor, particularly in the issues of major importance, such as politics, history and economics. The final straw is the heavy pay-check for professors: they are bribed by the criminal class element in society, the top financiers and their criminal thinkers/strategists (imho). Also, the greed of these university people gets the better of them. And then they start feeling superior over everyone, and that means they lose solidarity with the people, and aren't concerned with real problems in the world anymore. They close their eyes. But that's not real "intellectuals" anymore, that's carreer people. I would think that the minority of "intellectuals" that hold out in university circles is marginalized there. Other ppl there feel too threatened by someone who can reason two or three issues in a row, so they feel their power position is under threat and start to work with the ellbowes. In general "intellectuals" tend to work for the good side, because the only answer is peace, prosperity & democracy. Why did the Chinese emperor murder all his scholars ? Because their progressive ideas of helping the people where a threat to his absolute power. Leave the beer for a few years, maybe that will help the masses become "intellectuals" too, and then they could finally see the difference between the criminal element, the semi-intellectuals who waste money and solve no problems; not the major problems at least, the departments of politics, economics and law, those are quite deteriorated and sub-standard, as evidenced by the way things go in the world. People at universities tend t othink they are "intellectuals," because they never bother to really think for themselves from scratch; usually they can't do it, as evidenced by the total lack of solutions economic, political, legal, coming out of universities -- solutions that would make the difference I mean. So ... you're right that these academic folk are lacking, but it's not that the rest is doing any better either. Once science or scholarship gets institutionalized, you run the risk of it becoming a carreer vehicle for substandard people. To be on topic here: an interesting example are the Rabbis of Israel, whom you might term as "intellectuals." But if they had an ounce of honest thought, they would clearly reject the heter iska and prozbul lies, and would have found out why the Torah has that particular economic model ages ago, millenia ago. They aren't intellectuals, they are mistaken for that, mistaking themselves for that. They never really think. It's all so superficial. What sound of fascism said sounds just like neo-nazi anti-jewishness: 'the holocaust didn't happen, those evil jews made it up, let's kill all the jews, all 6 million of them.' (Which exactly proves how the holocaust actually did happen.) Same here: with intellectual thought it's supposedly proven how intellectuals are the cause of the worst problems ... "so let's genocide their asses" ? You might very well start then, with this "intellectual" who came up with quoted story. Here's a better solution: lower the wages of all university people, cut it at least back to average. That'll increase their loyalty to the public, maybe then they do their work, smart or less smart. As institutionalization of thought goes, it is difficult to keep straight. By cutting the income, you run a better change only those really interested in that kind of stuff are attracted to it. Dumber people are often more interested in becoming wealthy, they live more in gratification of that kind of will/desire imho. So what we need is more intellectualism, and less pretence-intellectualism. Lower their wage ! The share of those really meaning it would likely increase. By the way: the criminal element is known (it is recorded in history), to use money to buy up their own resistence movements, and thus attempt to control/steer/corrupt/use them. Explaining that strategy: Say you have great power through vast oceans of money and ownership of companies and you are proficient in the arts of blackmail, people demagoguery, manipulating people, lying, thuggery, etc. The public is mad about it (it's the victim), and they start a resistance. It's a big world, many nations, many ruling cliques. You are then going to place funds with those resistance movements that you feel are most dumb, most idiotic, and therefore least threatening. You build them up, you build up your own enemy with your own money. Sounds crazy ? Yeah ?! What's more dangerous then being faced with a competent enemy you have no leverage over at all, out to do away with you ? Look at history, that does sometimes happen. The people can rise up and take control. What that then does, funding the enemy, is: you can crowd out the more competent resistance movements, while at the same time you infiltrate and put on the wrong track the one you are funding. You might want to fund several resistance movements out of all the resistance movements, because if one of them accidentally gets it right you can withdraw funds use tactics against them and quickly try to put the other resistance movements ahead through increased funding and positive press etc etc. In the ultimate case: kill the problematic people. Right ? Now, that's the criminal "intellectual" strategists at work. Top criminals aren't dumb, they are often very clever in their deviousness. You could call it an abuse of intellectual potential. I don't know how much academia is in that camp. I think it varies a lot. Sometimes it seems they are more in the enemy camp, sometimes it's obvious they are in the good camp. So it varies per person, university, nation. But i doubt that the real criminal strategies are being done in academics, the real criminal strategies are done in secret obviously (i guess). It works better in secret; if you tell the people about such devious strategies using funding, blackmail, murder, etc etc, ppl would have an eye out for bad signs and that would hamper your strategy to take effect. People would be very interested to know who funds a certain movement, where it originated, who is the ones who run it; if they are agents or not. Journalists might get an irresistable appetite to lay bear the financial structures behind political parties/people; even if they might not be able t oget it published in the 'owned' media, they may get it in marginal media. The people might jump on it. The people might even ... ... the people mith even resolve to start movements that do not take any money whatsoever. They might start to become impervious to what the mass media is lying all day about obvious political enemies. They might become critical in their thinking, and often review their party-loyalties and work hard to keep their movements in line and clean. If that happens, maybe the power structure, the criminal power structure in the top, might lose. * http://www.socialism.nl http://www.socialism.nl/party/nl/david-we/ <<-- Political party strategy (pack strategy). Uses 0 money, not from gifts, not from the state, nothing. Membership is 0,-. Political party strategy that's outside the reach of finance ... using that 'place of rest,' to alter the whole society and depose the criminal financial power. Note that the 'pack strategy' means it's not one party but a group of independent parties. Every party has its own very strong internal protocols to keep top corruption in check. That way we run least risk of ending up owned by the enemy, if not through finance or blackmay, murder and lying and propaganda smear campaigns, then by dumping those parties who did lose it in favor of one of those who are still good and booting up new ones from scratch; and constantly splitting a party when the top seems to have become corrupt. But most importantly: using a strategy where it is not the goal to become the power. That is the big mistake of most parties: they all say 'give us the power.' That does not work well. What these parties say is 'we want a new system that decides who will have the power,' a more people friendly democratic system. So that we can constantly clean the top echelon. We had some of that, but it's not enough. We need more power to clean the top. Also ... once our parties gain power and ability to set up a better system, the whole top 'leadership' of the party is it to be switched out. All protocols that should make it relatively impossible for carreer junkies to reach the top and stay in the top. You can see in the communist parties how it works when you do not provide such protocols. The finance enemy is recorded to have funded K.Marx and such at one time. Presumably they thought: these guys really don't understand it, even if they ever gain power they'll make chaos and we'll be laughing last -- and they did. --