Geniocracy

[cyberpi]

Okay, did you read it all?

What is evil about it?

What was ugly about it?

That would be hard since I will differ with the manifesto and you as to what 'evil' and 'ugly' are.

Basically: I say that whatever criteria a person or people may have before placing faith into someone as an elected servant, it is rightfully that person or people's choice. Anything that circumvents that is oppression or thievery.

There is nothing wrong if a person were to place basic requirements of education for a government position. You can't drive a car until you pass a publicly accepted test to drive a car, and you can't obtain employment without meeting requirements set by the employer. But it is the public or customer that defines that criteria. An individual or society can place faith in an individual dependent on the criteria of their choosing. This geniocracy proposes enforcing a criteria, essentially removing a set of choices from the public. What is that criteria? That the person is a genius... whatever that means to anyone. You are asking people to serve only the mind or minds deemed genius. I consider that evil.

The problem I have with using that as required criteria is that it is inherently evil. What do I mean by that? Someone there wishes to set the criteria that only the more powerful people should have faith placed in them to give them more power. They want to place faith in a person endowed with features that someone considers more powerful. It is a darwinist concept... many companies use it, like the former Enron. Today employment in many places are heavily performance based. If that performance is tied to customer choice then the performance can be due to faithful service... but the employer, customer or consumer decides what that criteria is. You say that genius defines performance. I know that is often wrong. But in setting criteria, you could also elect only a rich person, or an educated person (different from genius), or a good looking person, or a physically strong person, or a popular person. Whatever the criteria is, many people wish to elect a powerful person to a position of power over people. I don't... I consider all those criteria to be evil. Yes, the USA like anywhere has people choosing by evil criteria.

Similarly as a consumer I might purchase solely by cost or by performance of product. Or I might consider other things, like the country the product was made in and their form of government. Or I might consider the honesty of the person or company. Or whether the person or company provides people with choices. Or that the person or company is charitable with profits. Maybe I choose a product by its color, or if I have allergies and I might avoid a certain material. Nobody knows what criteria that I am going to select by. Your manifesto grossly overlooks the importance of consumer choice... as well as the people's choice in electing an alledged servant (government).

A servant is a person that submits to the will of the person served. Your manifesto overlooks that important fact. In Christianity, Jesus was a selective servant, but he did not just walk up to people and heal them. This topic is also at the forefront of Islam. Note that I consider man's version of Islam is entirely different than the Qur'an. In man's version a Caliph or a set of leaders are chosen somehow to rule over the people. Who chooses that criteria though is paramount. Anyone that removes the choice from an individual being served is a thief. The Qur'an says to place nobody as Lord (Caliph) between you and God.

My criteria in relationships, especially government, is roughly focused on three concepts: Love (mercy, patience, forgiveness, etc...), Faith (choices placed in others), and Truth (honesty). I judge that this Rael is a liar... I don't care how smart he claims to be, I would not elect him to empty my garbage. He is a song-writer writing fables to appeal to people. If his message came from outer space then send it back.

 

[cyberpi]

Anyone that removes the choice from an individual being served is a thief.

I meant, and should have said, anyone who taxes or removes the choice from an individual alledgedly being served is a theif. A gift, love, grace, forgiveness, a post, a suggested manifesto, a rebuke, etc... do not TAX or remove from a person. Some representative democracies are not without the need for drastic change there because the representation and power for choosing the representation is extremely thin and is decreasing. However, I suggest the opposite of the Geniocracy manifesto... move further towards including each individual in having greater voting power over laws, treaties, and major decisions.

Genius is not exactly a matter of genes. Whether or not a person learns something has a lot to do with the Faith placed in them, the Love they see, access to information, and their personal interests. If a person has a vote in an issue that effects them, then they are propelled to educate themselves. If it is recognized that social upbringing has a lot to do with a person's growth, then take special note when considering a social manifesto that directs decision making towards the alledgedly smart.

A vote on an issue should be more than yes / no. Abstaining from a vote is just as important. I abstain from all sorts of things that I don't wish to be responsible for. That has a lot to do with the relationship with God... the real God. Not some space invader invented by Mr Rael.

 

[enlightenment]

That would be hard since I will differ with the manifesto and you as to what 'evil' and 'ugly' are.

So, did you read the entire manifesto, yes or no? Regardless of what we woud individually define as 'ugly' and 'evil', my question was a simple one, that can be answered with a yes or a no. Going by what you have written below, it would appear that the answer is either A) No, not at all B) Yes, you skimmed it C) Yes, you did read it all.

Basically: I say that whatever criteria a person or people may have before placing faith into someone as an elected servant, it is rightfully that person or people's choice. Anything that circumvents that is oppression or thievery.

Then you would have to conclude that this is also the case in all so called democratic countries today, surely? Think about it......

There is nothing wrong if a person were to place basic requirements of education for a government position. You can't drive a car until you pass a publicly accepted test to drive a car, and you can't obtain employment without meeting requirements set by the employer.


Your car analogy is a fine one. Imagine the nation that you live in as a 'car', and the driver is the Prime Minister. Right now, there is no criterea, unless you count wealth and influence as valid critereon, for anyone to enter into politics. Or be the leader of a nation. In other words, what you have is often a highly unsuited 'driver' at the wheel of this 'car'. What happens when they take to the motorway? Potential carnage. Only, in the case of a nation, as we see in the US, the carnage is much more than any unqualified driver could ever cause.


But it is the public or customer that defines that criteria. An individual or society can place faith in an individual dependent on the criteria of their choosing. This geniocracy proposes enforcing a criteria, essentially removing a set of choices from the public. What is that criteria? That the person is a genius... whatever that means to anyone. You are asking people to serve only the mind or minds deemed genius. I consider that evil.

If the public were delivering us politicians and leaders who were of altruistic intent, non war mongers, then there would be no problem. But you and I know that is not the case. Turn on the television. Pick up a newspaper. Go on the internet. From the (cough) 'democratically' elected Governments in the US, to those in the UK, or Hezbollah, to Adolf Hiter's NSP, what we see are men with blood on their hands, VOTED in by the general masses. Your beloved democracy has decades of blood on it's hands. How much blood is on the hands of the Geniocracy?

The problem I have with using that as required criteria is that it is inherently evil. What do I mean by that? Someone there wishes to set the criteria that only the more powerful people should have faith placed in them to give them more power. They want to place faith in a person endowed with features that someone considers more powerful. It is a darwinist concept... many companies use it, like the former Enron. Today employment in many places are heavily performance based. If that performance is tied to customer choice then the performance can be due to faithful service... but the employer, customer or consumer decides what that criteria is. You say that genius defines performance. I know that is often wrong. But in setting criteria, you could also elect only a rich person, or an educated person (different from genius), or a good looking person, or a physically strong person, or a popular person. Whatever the criteria is, many people wish to elect a powerful person to a position of power over people. I don't... I consider all those criteria to be evil. Yes, the USA like anywhere has people choosing by evil criteria.

Er, so what do you propose then, because if you have a good idea, one better than democracy, one better than Geniocracy, I would love to hear that.

A servant is a person that submits to the will of the person served. Your manifesto overlooks that important fact. In Christianity, Jesus was a selective servant, but he did not just walk up to people and heal them. This topic is also at the forefront of Islam. Note that I consider man's version of Islam is entirely different than the Qur'an. In man's version a Caliph or a set of leaders are chosen somehow to rule over the people. Who chooses that criteria though is paramount. Anyone that removes the choice from an individual being served is a thief. The Qur'an says to place nobody as Lord (Caliph) between you and God.

This is about a political system, please, for the purposes of the conversation, do not bring thing like God or Jesus into it.

My criteria in relationships, especially government, is roughly focused on three concepts: Love (mercy, patience, forgiveness, etc...), Faith (choices placed in others), and Truth (honesty). I judge that this Rael is a liar... I don't care how smart he claims to be, I would not elect him to empty my garbage. He is a song-writer writing fables to appeal to people. If his message came from outer space then send it back.

On what basis do you conclude that he is a liar, that is a pretty heavy charge on someone that I assume you have never met. And, you know what, there is no need to be rude about a man that you have never met before. Besides which, we can happily leave Rael out of this, and discuss the concept anyway. If a bigot, which I do not think he is, were to come up with an idea, a good idea, it is possible to ignore the bigot, and accept that their idea has merit.

Thanks for the chat.

 

[enlightenment]

test....

 

[enlightenment]

Reason I placed that post here (test), is that I just opened a thread to tell people that Saddam has been murdered, and it said it would not appear until a mod has approved it? First time I have got that message here. Why?

 

[cyberpi]

So, did you read the entire manifesto, yes or no?

Yes, I read it I can see that is written to appeal to many people. A paragraph or a concept for everyone. Do you think if someone found something pleasing that they'd accept the beliefs?

Then you would have to conclude that this is also the case in all so called democratic countries today, surely? Think about it......

I re-stated a concept as a fundamental moral independent of any country. Do you agree or disagree with the moral as I concisely stated it?

Your car analogy is a fine one. Imagine the nation that you live in as a 'car', and the driver is the Prime Minister.

I stated no analogy. But in your analogy the society, the people, the human souls that the alledged Prime Minister are supposed to be serving are instead serving as the engine, the transmission, the wheels, the frame, the onboard computer, all following the command of the driver to take him where he wants to go. Does the car go where the Prime Minister wants to go, or does the Prime Minister go where the car wants to go? Who is serving who?

My words meant that the public is rightfully the formulator and decision maker of the law and education that a public servant must obey and conform to. To drive on the public roads is a privilege, so the public can enforce any required education. Your analogy is one where the public servant is instead the master over commanding people where to drive. Big difference there.

Geniocracy further calls for the genius scientific creators of cars to naturally be the drivers of their cars. Brilliant. Would Geniocracy be from the genius Elohim?

If the public were delivering us politicians and leaders who were of altruistic intent, non war mongers, then there would be no problem. But you and I know that is not the case. Turn on the television. Pick up a newspaper. Go on the internet. From the (cough) 'democratically' elected Governments in the US, to those in the UK, or Hezbollah, to Adolf Hiter's NSP, what we see are men with blood on their hands, VOTED in by the general masses. Your beloved democracy has decades of blood on it's hands. How much blood is on the hands of the Geniocracy?

With that interesting argument any blood free socialist manifesto would pass. Is there any blood on the hands of Idiocracy? Lets try the new innovative requirement that government leaders must have a low IQ. A public servant must be dumber than the master public so that they can't fool us with fancy rhetoric and deceitful public relations. It is difficult for a lower IQ to successfully lie and mislead people. Governments in the US, the UK, the Hezbollah, Adolf Hitler, and lets not forget the democratically elected Saddam Hussein and Iranian leaders, all claim to be smart leaders with smart ideas... and the public falls for it. So lets require that those governments be DUMB. No more fooling the public with lies and bloody wars. Why not elect the dumb? It is a new concept, innovative, creative, even genius, with no blood on its hands. Lets elect the dumb. The genius have fooled the public long enough and have caused every war known to man.

You seem to use WAR or bloodshed as a scale. Realize that if a public had to vote on whether to go to war then there would be very few wars.

This is about a political system, please, for the purposes of the conversation, do not bring thing like God or Jesus into it.

Why not? Rael does. Is that not where the manifesto came from? Do you mean to say Rael did not receive a private bible lesson aboard a UFO in France in December 1973? Do you mean to say that Rael was not "re-created" on the planet of the Elohim in his 1976 book, "They Took Me to Their Planet"? Did he NOT meet Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad there and receive the concept of Geniocracy from them?

The 2nd page of the on-line book "Geniocracy" by Rael states that Rael met the Elohim. He says, "It was they who initiated all the major religions by contacting the prophets, such as Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed, giving them a message of wisdom and love adapted to the understanding of their age."

Er, so what do you propose then, because if you have a good idea, one better than democracy, one better than Geniocracy, I would love to hear that.

I favor a movement towards direct democracy. Steps towards higher amounts of representation by electing representatives that direct decision making and law making back to the public. If you wish to pick apart the USA: a founding mantra of, "no taxation without representation" should be quantified. Tax is quantified by money but how is representation quantified? There is a missing scale.

It is not my idea though. It follows from placing faith in the faithful and not placing faith in the unfaithful. That assumes though you understand what a faithful servant is. I would direct you to the bible.

On what basis do you conclude that he is a liar, that is a pretty heavy charge on someone that I assume you have never met. And, you know what, there is no need to be rude about a man that you have never met before.

I have a number of reasons but consider this one: On the second page of Rael's online book: "Geniocracy", Rael claims the Elohim gave to Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed the major religions. Rael says point blank that the Elohim want us to know there is NO God. Yet each of those prophets worshipped and taught to worship God. Who then is the liar: Elohim, and Moses, and Jesus, and Mohammed... or Rael? But it is Rael that rudely utilizes the names of Elohim, Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, claiming that he met them as aliens on another planet. He provides a manifesto contrary to their teachings. You say that I'm rude about a man that I have never met before? Well then, who has Rael met and been rude to? If anyone is to judge Geniocracy they are judging Rael's thoughts and words.

Besides which, we can happily leave Rael out of this, and discuss the concept anyway. If a bigot, which I do not think he is, were to come up with an idea, a good idea, it is possible to ignore the bigot, and accept that their idea has merit.

You ask me if I've read a manifesto... have you read Rael's book?
Online book downloaded here: The Raelian Movement: Downloads / English e-books / Geniocracy
How can you leave the author out of it? Did he not write it? Does he not claim to be the author? I am unsure why you are calling Rael a bigot, but I am sure you have your reasons.

 

[enlightenment]

Yes, I read it I can see that is written to appeal to many people. A paragraph or a concept for everyone. Do you think if someone found something pleasing that they'd accept the beliefs?

Well that is good mate, at least you read it. To be honest, I always say that someone should be prepared to read anything, you never know what you might find. For example, I find the NSP idealogy abhorent, yet that did not stop me from reading Mein Kampf. Not that I am comparing that two!

I stated no analogy. But in your analogy the society, the people, the human souls that the alledged Prime Minister are supposed to be serving are instead serving as the engine, the transmission, the wheels, the frame, the onboard computer, all following the command of the driver to take him where he wants to go. Does the car go where the Prime Minister wants to go, or does the Prime Minister go where the car wants to go? Who is serving who?

The genius is the brain, the rest are the other organs. All are important, and can only properly function in tandem. Thus, a brain would be no use without a heart to pump the blood, however, all decisions in our body are made by the brain, and not the heart. Were we get mixed up is ny giving the task that the brain should be doing, to the heart, and so on. All would be aimed at creating a better more altruistic society. It is not always important for one to understand precisely how something works, to their benefit, as long as it does work. For example, someone with a brain disorder, may not understand how a medicine works for then, but if it does, that is the most crucial thing.

My words meant that the public is rightfully the formulator and decision maker of the law and education that a public servant must obey and conform to. To drive on the public roads is a privilege, so the public can enforce any required education. Your analogy is one where the public servant is instead the master over commanding people where to drive. Big difference there.

Do you think it is good that a mallable, and quite frankly thick person who spends all day watching Big Brother, has the same voting rights as someone who has the mind of Einstein?

Geniocracy further calls for the genius scientific creators of cars to naturally be the drivers of their cars. Brilliant. Would Geniocracy be from the genius Elohim?

I don't know.


With that interesting argument any blood free socialist manifesto would pass. Is there any blood on the hands of Idiocracy? Lets try the new innovative requirement that government leaders must have a low IQ. A public servant must be dumber than the master public so that they can't fool us with fancy rhetoric and deceitful public relations. It is difficult for a lower IQ to successfully lie and mislead people. Governments in the US, the UK, the Hezbollah, Adolf Hitler, and lets not forget the democratically elected Saddam Hussein and Iranian leaders, all claim to be smart leaders with smart ideas... and the public falls for it. So lets require that those governments be DUMB. No more fooling the public with lies and bloody wars. Why not elect the dumb? It is a new concept, innovative, creative, even genius, with no blood on its hands. Lets elect the dumb. The genius have fooled the public long enough and have caused every war known to man.

No. You are wrong. Intelligence is love, and loving people do not war, therefore, all those that you have mentioned, and those that voted for them, they are dumb.

You seem to use WAR or bloodshed as a scale. Realize that if a public had to vote on whether to go to war then there would be very few wars.

Are you sure?

Why not? Rael does. Is that not where the manifesto came from? Do you mean to say Rael did not receive a private bible lesson aboard a UFO in France in December 1973? Do you mean to say that Rael was not "re-created" on the planet of the Elohim in his 1976 book, "They Took Me to Their Planet"? Did he NOT meet Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad there and receive the concept of Geniocracy from them?

It makes no difference to me what he claimed re 73.. A good idea can be a good idea, whether we reject his claims or not.

The 2nd page of the on-line book "Geniocracy" by Rael states that Rael met the Elohim. He says, "It was they who initiated all the major religions by contacting the prophets, such as Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed, giving them a message of wisdom and love adapted to the understanding of their age."

Yes, I know, and..?


I have a number of reasons but consider this one: On the second page of Rael's online book: "Geniocracy", Rael claims the Elohim gave to Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed the major religions. Rael says point blank that the Elohim want us to know there is NO God. Yet each of those prophets worshipped and taught to worship God. Who then is the liar: Elohim, and Moses, and Jesus, and Mohammed... or Rael? But it is Rael that rudely utilizes the names of Elohim, Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, claiming that he met them as aliens on another planet. He provides a manifesto contrary to their teachings. You say that I'm rude about a man that I have never met before? Well then, who has Rael met and been rude to? If anyone is to judge Geniocracy they are judging Rael's thoughts and words.

Rael says quite clearly that there is no impalpable god, and that in the OT, the word god is Yaweh, and that Elohim means, in Hebrew, those that 'came from the sky'. In other words, god is not a single being, but a race, 25,000 ahead of us in their science and technlogy, it may be a crock of **** for all I know, and yet, it is no less plausible than the primitive Genesis, which was seen through ancient 'eyes'.


You ask me if I've read a manifesto... have you read Rael's book?
Online book downloaded here: The Raelian Movement: Downloads / English e-books / Geniocracy
How can you leave the author out of it? Did he not write it? Does he not claim to be the author? I am unsure why you are calling Rael a bigot, but I am sure you have your reasons.

Yes, I have read them all.

There are parts, many parts, that I am not at ease with, however, there are others that I find interesting.

I am not a member. I do not plan to be any time soon. Rael is not a bigot, that is not what I meant, however, if a bigot came up with a good business model for example, I might accept the model, and reject the bigot.

 

[cyberpi]

The genius is the brain, the rest are the other organs. All are important, and can only properly function in tandem. Thus, a brain would be no use without a heart to pump the blood, however, all decisions in our body are made by the brain, and not the heart. Were we get mixed up is ny giving the task that the brain should be doing, to the heart, and so on. All would be aimed at creating a better more altruistic society. It is not always important for one to understand precisely how something works, to their benefit, as long as it does work. For example, someone with a brain disorder, may not understand how a medicine works for then, but if it does, that is the most crucial thing.

That is where I differ. Every military is organized as you say, like a body. There is a chain of command, a ranking, brains at the top, grunts at the bottom. Even with the branches, divisions, motor pool, forward observation posts, guards, cooks... it is people conforming to a body part. The general does not really serve the will of the private, he commands them. The geniocracy manifesto doesn't like privates electing generals, and neither does the military. Many businesses are organized the same way, but a person elects where to work.

Where we differ is in the recognition of you, the soul, the free will. I find there are two kinds of atheists. The first is uncertain about God and heaven and the second is also uncertain about the importance of the soul or the will of an individual. It is that second atheist that I am strongly opposed with. I read that Rael is both and his long list of 'human rights' sounds to me like a list of ideals from one of Hitler's speeches. Propaganda. A pleasant song for some.

With CLONAID apparently the Rael group hopes that a human clone will convince everyone that people are nothing more than the a body with a brain.

Do you think it is good that a mallable, and quite frankly thick person who spends all day watching Big Brother, has the same voting rights as someone who has the mind of Einstein?

Take that alledgedly thick person and put a gun in his hands and stand in front of him. Will he pull the trigger? How many people would? The point is the overwhelming majority of people have a sense of responsibility for their actions... even the dumbest.

The real issue is that voting between a few people who will make the major decisions and laws is nearly worthless representation. Capitalist lobbying is corrupt and prone to fascism. But if voting were repetitive and specific on major decisions encompassing a group of people or as a final ratification of bills into law then the vote has real power. The thickest person will not be moved to vote every time... a person should be able to line item ABSTAIN from a vote. If I am not educated on something then I am not inspired to vote on it, but if I have developed an opinion then I have a reason and I am inspired to vote. The ignorant tend to be unconcerned with voting on an issue. To earn their votes some people would stand on soap boxes or raise an issue in a dinner conversation... and that interaction is good. It has a way of educating the 'dumb' public or bringing their attention to an issue. But the ignorant are slow to care. Maybe you don't see that because you think the media or government does all the programming. The weak link is in demanding the decision power away from government in proportion to the taxes put into the pool. Right now an elite group of elected already sit on the wealth of everyone and I consider it nearly irrelevant whether they are smart or dumb. The damage is already done.

No. You are wrong. Intelligence is love, and loving people do not war, therefore, all those that you have mentioned, and those that voted for them, they are dumb.

Interesting perspective.

It makes no difference to me what he claimed re 73.. A good idea can be a good idea, whether we reject his claims or not.

The premise of geniocracy is that a well organized brain (innovative, genius) comes up with better ideas and makes better decisions... but now in defense you distance and separate an idea from the brain that alledgedly made it. That is hypocrisy. Or, if Rael claims to be a dumb messenger delivering a good idea from the genius Elohim, then geniocracy is dead because the Elohim will abduct and give good ideas to non-genius people.

Yes, I know, and..?

Same as the prior paragraph: Rael uses the name of Elohim, Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad to sell his idea. Is that a genius taking responsibility for his own idea? Does Rael claim to be a prophet or messenger merely delivering a message? Either way, Rael heavily places his concept in his own name.

Rael says quite clearly that there is no impalpable god, and that in the OT, the word god is Yaweh, and that Elohim means, in Hebrew, those that 'came from the sky'. In other words, god is not a single being, but a race, 25,000 ahead of us in their science and technlogy, it may be a crock of **** for all I know, and yet, it is no less plausible than the primitive Genesis, which was seen through ancient 'eyes'.

I fully recognize the perversion. Interesting isn't it.

 

[enlightenment]

That is where I differ. Every military is organized as you say, like a body. There is a chain of command, a ranking, brains at the top, grunts at the bottom. Even with the branches, divisions, motor pool, forward observation posts, guards, cooks... it is people conforming to a body part. The general does not really serve the will of the private, he commands them. The geniocracy manifesto doesn't like privates electing generals, and neither does the military. Many businesses are organized the same way, but a person elects where to work.

Where we differ is in the recognition of you, the soul, the free will. I find there are two kinds of atheists. The first is uncertain about God and heaven and the second is also uncertain about the importance of the soul or the will of an individual. It is that second atheist that I am strongly opposed with. I read that Rael is both and his long list of 'human rights' sounds to me like a list of ideals from one of Hitler's speeches. Propaganda. A pleasant song for some.

With CLONAID apparently the Rael group hopes that a human clone will convince everyone that people are nothing more than the a body with a brain.

Take that alledgedly thick person and put a gun in his hands and stand in front of him. Will he pull the trigger? How many people would? The point is the overwhelming majority of people have a sense of responsibility for their actions... even the dumbest.

The real issue is that voting between a few people who will make the major decisions and laws is nearly worthless representation. Capitalist lobbying is corrupt and prone to fascism. But if voting were repetitive and specific on major decisions encompassing a group of people or as a final ratification of bills into law then the vote has real power. The thickest person will not be moved to vote every time... a person should be able to line item ABSTAIN from a vote. If I am not educated on something then I am not inspired to vote on it, but if I have developed an opinion then I have a reason and I am inspired to vote. The ignorant tend to be unconcerned with voting on an issue. To earn their votes some people would stand on soap boxes or raise an issue in a dinner conversation... and that interaction is good. It has a way of educating the 'dumb' public or bringing their attention to an issue. But the ignorant are slow to care. Maybe you don't see that because you think the media or government does all the programming. The weak link is in demanding the decision power away from government in proportion to the taxes put into the pool. Right now an elite group of elected already sit on the wealth of everyone and I consider it nearly irrelevant whether they are smart or dumb. The damage is already done.

Interesting perspective.

The premise of geniocracy is that a well organized brain (innovative, genius) comes up with better ideas and makes better decisions... but now in defense you distance and separate an idea from the brain that alledgedly made it. That is hypocrisy. Or, if Rael claims to be a dumb messenger delivering a good idea from the genius Elohim, then geniocracy is dead because the Elohim will abduct and give good ideas to non-genius people.

Same as the prior paragraph: Rael uses the name of Elohim, Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad to sell his idea. Is that a genius taking responsibility for his own idea? Does Rael claim to be a prophet or messenger merely delivering a message? Either way, Rael heavily places his concept in his own name.

I fully recognize the perversion. Interesting isn't it.

I logged onto this board, typed out a good and interesting reply for you mate, then when I hit submit, it said that I had not logged in, which I had!

I am not retyping it all again tonight, so will do so another time.

Happy New Year.

 

[seattlegal]

No. You are wrong. Intelligence is love, and loving people do not war, therefore, all those that you have mentioned, and those that voted for them, they are dumb.

Interesting perspective.

The "intelligence is love" part reminds me of the the Theosophic concept of Ray 2: Love/Wisdom. (Compare to The 5 Wisdom families and 8 Consciousnesses for greater detail on the components of Love/Wisdom.
If Intelligence is love, than is hate idiocrity? There is a whole lot of politically motivated hate out there. Would this constitute cyberpi's "Idiocracy," mentioned earlier in this thread?

 

[cyberpi]

Seattlegal,
I differentiate the terms 'genius' or 'intelligence' being used here with the term 'wisdom' or 'knowledge'. In the first link you provided I notice that active intelligence or creative intelligence is a different ray. I would say that ignorance is more the lack of knowledge rather than a characteristic of a person to obtain knowledge or make decisions. For example Einstein or Buddha are considered intelligent by many although they were ignorant of many things.

I have many differences with Buddhism which I would like to discuss some day later. Wrong thread and I'll be heading away for a month for work. I would simply state a key difference with me this way: If LOVE is in any way quantified by a level of wisdom, consciousness, or state of buddha, then it is that which is sacrificed and instead GIVEN up so that others might achieve it. Would you disagree?

 

[cyberpi]

Strange: I replied SG, and the forum says that I have replied, but the reply does not show up for me? The last post I see is: SG post #30. Also the number of replies appears to be wrong. Has the CR database become corrupted?

 

[cyberpi]

Well it says 29 replies now and there are 30 posts, so maybe this one will take now? This is my 3rd reply to SG.

<EDIT> Ok, that was very strange. CR is behaving strange to me. All posts suddenly appeared. Sorry for the extra posts.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

O.K., I skimmed the manifesto. Very utopian, I must say. I suppose, idealistically of course, this geniocracy thing sounds about as good as any other utopian system I've heard envisioned. Which is to say it'll never bloody work, but it might make a basis for a work of science fiction.

Chris

 

[enlightenment]

O.K., I skimmed the manifesto. Very utopian, I must say. I suppose, idealistically of course, this geniocracy thing sounds about as good as any other utopian system I've heard envisioned. Which is to say it'll never bloody work, but it might make a basis for a work of science fiction.

Chris

Chris,

I agree. In the vulgar society in which we live today, no, it would not work. However, I hope that one day it can, as we are presently living in a hellish distopia.

And remember, today's science fiction is tommorow's science fact.

100 years ago, who would have thought that I could send you a message like this, right now?

I would have been laughed at.

Then someone had an idea, and I bet he was laughed at too....

 

[lunamoth]

Well it says 29 replies now and there are 30 posts, so maybe this one will take now? This is my 3rd reply to SG.

<EDIT> Ok, that was very strange. CR is behaving strange to me. All posts suddenly appeared. Sorry for the extra posts.

Hi cyberpi, I think it's just a bug in the software. It comes up from time to time for posts made at the bottom of a page; you can't see them until someone else makes another post. luna

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Chris,

I agree. In the vulgar society in which we live today, no, it would not work. However, I hope that one day it can, as we are presently living in a hellish distopia.

And remember, today's science fiction is tommorow's science fact.

100 years ago, who would have thought that I could send you a message like this, right now?

I would have been laughed at.

Then someone had an idea, and I bet he was laughed at too....

Well, I guess I'm kinda pessimistic on human nature. I think people have to compete. I think the blood lust is in our nature. Plus, I'm into the idea of me and mine.

Chris

 

[iri hasel]

ahem. maybe this is pedantic, but i have to wonder about a manifesto proposing rule-of-the-wise when there are grammatical errors in the first paragraph: "The proposition of Geniocracy is then a political system who’s hierarchy revolved around intelligence." there are more, i'll spare you the tedium. sure, this isn't necessarily related to quality of content, but it suggests to me a certain degree of, how shall i put this...flakiness i believe is the word i want. or perhaps intellectual laziness? neither characteristics fill me with confidence. by the way, i know i commit the grammatical error of inconsistent capitalization, but then i am not promoting 'geniusness'.

the logical flaw that leaps out at me from the very beginning (1.1.1.1) is that of presuming that our political leaders are trying to achieve the same things we are and in the same way i.e. "political leaders who think that war is a solution to political problems." if the problem in Iraq is that of an unstable state endangering international peace, then yes, war is not a solution. if the problem is rather that Iraq as a stable state will be able to raise the price of petroleum as it sees fit and endanger American corporations, then war is a great solution, from the point of view of the politicians swayed by corporate lobbyists. War is great for the GDP, as it moves lots of money around. it is in fact extremely dangerous to think that those who choose war are stupid. Over the years the US has very deliberately orchestrated or at least tolerated a great number of atrocities to achieve goals they often keep obscured from as many people as they can. stupid people couldn't manage such massive undertakings.

in general, i find hierarchies to be very old-fashioned and am much more interested in the evolution of power from a thing to be possessed by the few into an ever-fluctuating process directed by all. to believe that the type of hierarchy is the problem is akin to believing that when the house you're building keeps falling down, you simply aren't using a large enough hammer. maybe the model of hierarchial governance is inherently flawed.

And while we're at it, how about a manifesto for action now, not 100 years from now? if we make it another 100 years we may not need utopian ideology as we will presumably have solved a great many of our problems already. if we don't solve them, i believe we won't survive as a species in a way that will enable us to implement this sort of utopian social experiment.

let's see, what else...oh yes, that the brain is in control of the body: "all decisions in our body are made by the brain" which you use as an analogy to show that those who think the most deserve to rule. how very Enlightenment of you, which is to say how very 18th Century male European. we can discuss sympathetic versus parasympathetic nervous systems some other time, but suffice it to say this is a weak-ass analogy, and analogies do not constitute proof.

 

[enlightenment]

ahem. maybe this is pedantic, but i have to wonder about a manifesto proposing rule-of-the-wise when there are grammatical errors in the first paragraph: "The proposition of Geniocracy is then a political system who’s hierarchy revolved around intelligence." there are more, i'll spare you the tedium. sure, this isn't necessarily related to quality of content, but it suggests to me a certain degree of, how shall i put this...flakiness i believe is the word i want. or perhaps intellectual laziness? neither characteristics fill me with confidence. by the way, i know i commit the grammatical error of inconsistent capitalization, but then i am not promoting 'geniusness'.

I think you confuse genius, those with imagination and creative skills, with academic intelligence.

the logical flaw that leaps out at me from the very beginning (1.1.1.1) is that of presuming that our political leaders are trying to achieve the same things we are and in the same way i.e. "political leaders who think that war is a solution to political problems." if the problem in Iraq is that of an unstable state endangering international peace, then yes, war is not a solution. if the problem is rather that Iraq as a stable state will be able to raise the price of petroleum as it sees fit and endanger American corporations, then war is a great solution, from the point of view of the politicians swayed by corporate lobbyists. War is great for the GDP, as it moves lots of money around. it is in fact extremely dangerous to think that those who choose war are stupid. Over the years the US has very deliberately orchestrated or at least tolerated a great number of atrocities to achieve goals they often keep obscured from as many people as they can. stupid people couldn't manage such massive undertakings.

Not really sure if you are agreeing here, or not....?

in general, i find hierarchies to be very old-fashioned and am much more interested in the evolution of power from a thing to be possessed by the few into an ever-fluctuating process directed by all. to believe that the type of hierarchy is the problem is akin to believing that when the house you're building keeps falling down, you simply aren't using a large enough hammer. maybe the model of hierarchial governance is inherently flawed.

And while we're at it, how about a manifesto for action now, not 100 years from now? if we make it another 100 years we may not need utopian ideology as we will presumably have solved a great many of our problems already. if we don't solve them, i believe we won't survive as a species in a way that will enable us to implement this sort of utopian social experiment.

Well, okay, like I said, I am happy to listen to something else other than Geniocracy. What precisely do you propose? How about writing a 2000 word manifesto, and I will consider that? But in a way, you are right. Humanity is too dumb to consider this, too narrow minded, so instead, we will keep with the unstable (coughs) 'democracies' that we have now. Do you want that? Really? Look at how how unstable they are. They have had their chance.

let's see, what else...oh yes, that the brain is in control of the body: "all decisions in our body are made by the brain" which you use as an analogy to show that those who think the most deserve to rule. how very Enlightenment of you, which is to say how very 18th Century male European. we can discuss sympathetic versus parasympathetic nervous systems some other time, but suffice it to say this is a weak-ass analogy, and analogies do not constitute proof.

It's not MY analogy, but what is wrong with it, anyway?

 

[Saltmeister]

Hello and greetings, Enlightenment . . . and everyone else.

I hear a lot of you talking about the elitist aspect of Geniocracy.

But . . . this is a government proposed by the International Raelian Movement (IRM).

Perhaps we should change direction a little bit and start exploring the Raelian Movement. Saying that geniocracy is elitist would be stating the obvious. But sometimes what is obvious and apparent is not so simple. Think of all the wars, political conflicts, armed struggles, rise and fall of political systems, etc. as well as the everyday interactions of individual human beings. Sometimes we see only what's apparent, but neglect to look at the driving forces behind something.

That is not to say I advocate the Raelian Movement's goals, as I don't believe in any political system. I only believe in God. Karl Marx came close in suggesting the existence of a so-called "God," when saying that after centuries and centuries of revolution, humanity would final achieve its ultimate goal of agrarian equality. The need for government would disappear once humanity achieved the goal of social and moral perfection. It was Marx's notion of "God" -- a man-made rather than an eternal, uncreated God.

What I would suggest is that we get more background on this issue. The push for Geniocracy is driven by the IRM. This means that Geniocracy is not the self-existent source of Geniocracy, but comes from something else, a separate entity with it's own agenda -- the International Raelian Movement. That said, I think it's counterproductive discussing how the elitism of geniocracy would be unfavourable, unacceptable or ineffective because Geniocracy by itself has no value except as inspired by the IRM.

For those of you who haven't gone further in exploring Raelism, you might surprised at what it proposes . . . I'm quite sure the elitism perception will disappear . . . replaced by something else which may be good or bad.

Now . . . to move on. Click the link to the Raelian Church in Wikipedia.

Raelian Angels.
As the Wikipedia says, there's a group of women who suggest that feminism is the key to the world's problems. They believe that if the world's people were to be actively "feminine" it would have a positive effect on the world socially, morally and politically. Quite possibly, war and weapons may be a thing of the past. They suggest that this would happen if men, also, tried to be "feminine."

Raëlian Angels are a group of women around the world who advocate femininity and refinement for all of humanity. Raëlians believe that people must grow beyond the current aggression and violence on Earth and that this will only happen if men too, as well as women, develop their femininity.

Rather than from being a "political feminist movement," my perception of this idea is that it's got a lot to do with the idea that men, as well as women, have a "feminine side." It is often said that "men are beasts." It's also said that men find it hard to actively share or show emotion. Maybe it's because of our "bestial mentality." We're shy and claustrophobic when it comes to deep, intimate interactions, as if we're somehow embarrassed when someone penetrates that deep into our heart and soul. We're afraid of being touched and moved.

Anyone ever seen the movie Being John Malkovich? It's where people would enter into this guy's consciousness (being in John Malkovich's head) for about 15 minutes before being ejected. What I found interesting was when Lotte Schwarz, a woman got to experience John Malkovich.

Lotte Schwartz: I think it's kinda sexy that John Malkovich has a portal, y'know, sort of like, it's like, like he has a vagina. It's sort of vaginal, y'know, like he has a, he has a penis AND a vagina. I mean, it's sort of like... Malkovich's... feminine side. I like that.

I liked that too. Ok, this may sound a bit lewd . . . but here's my thinking. Maybe we all have a feminine side. We all have a penis and a vagina. Men have a feminine side and women have a masculine side. Women aren't the only ones with emotional needs. Men have them too. I suppose that's what we need a woman for. It's not just women who need strong men, a man needs a woman strong enough to penetrate the hard shell of a man's shy and claustrophobic aversion and embarrassment of deep intimacy, and penetrate deep enough to access a man's hidden and secret feelings and emotions. So women have a penis too. Wow. I can't wait to be penetrated by a woman!!!

The movie, Being John Malkovich is not about feminism, but I guess there's a lot of things in there about sexual identity. Lotte and Maxine, both women, somehow fall in love because of the portal into John Malkovich's head. It's like they were somehow lesbian and transexual. Maxine gets pregnant through Lotte by being in John Malkovich's head and using John Malkovich's sperm. Maxine gives birth to a daughter. Finally, Craig Schwarz manages to find a portal into their daughter's head and can delight in the presence of his beloved Maxine. On the outside, Craig is a girl. But deep inside is a man. A man trapped in a woman's body.

Anyway, it's not that I would advocate this Raelian Angels' movement, but I think there is some truth to the idea of men having a so-called "feminine side," feminine in the conventional and traditional sense of being "feminine." I personally feel, though, that masculinity should be retained, or at least we should try and balance out our masculine and feminine sides.

Sexual Freedoms
Concerning sexual freedoms, Raelism seems to suggest that enjoying sex is the most important thing, not who you do it with, or whether or not you do it. It's been criticised for being orgiastic. I must say it's a long way from the elitist perception we had before. They no longer sound like bigots anymore, it sounds more like an ideology promoting sensual and sexual pleasure. Sex is a luxury, not an obligation. Do it with anyone you like, whenever it feels good and if it doesn't hurt anyone.

Hmmm. Makes me wonder. Do Raelists have a standardised concept of "marriage" or is it free for all? Is everybody married to everyone else through Raelism?

Sensual Meditation
Now here's the other thing. Sensual meditation. The pursuit of sensual fulfillment.

Ok, I think I get it
Ok, first we thought they were elitist bigots. Now we see a different side to Raelism -- a sensual side.

This could be seen as positive as well as negative.

Positive - Enjoy life. Be yourself. Be who you want to be. Do what you want. Discover, rediscover and re-invent yourself. Pursue your dreams. An attitude like this reinforces itself in the community, and works together to produce something positive.

Negative - Raelism is self-absorbed and self-indulgent. Those who are religious might go further in saying that it's a kind of atheism where you are in pursuit of individual identity, but not concerned with collective identity, at least in terms of a community seeking God.

But what about geniocracy? Ok, I haven't forgotten that. I think it's derived from the sensual side of Raelism -- the part of Raelism in concerned with sensations and sensual well-being -- the feeling of being enlightened? I guess, then, that the ideal world government would be run by Raelists, people enlightened by Raelism. Raelists have the secret formula of the ideal world government. So in the same way Christians, Muslims and Marxists can come to believe that they alone can create the perfect political system, because they are "enlightened" by certain concepts, Raelists believe their enlightened qualifies them as government builders. Christians have the Spirit, Muslims the Koran and the Islamic Ideology, Marxists the social, moral and political plan of Marxist agrarianism.

I guess then, that there is some elitism involved.