I also find that B.S. is a requirement for popular conspiracy theory. There seems to be a need for that “Goebbles’ big lie” to draw people’s interest. For Zeitgeist is the religion chapter 1, for Icke is the lizards, for the Christians is Lucifer… the list goes on.

Sadly, the “truth” needs that ingredient of fiction in order to transcend in popularity… after all it’s still a kind of entertainment.

The movies did a good job at illustrating a lot of corruption but it attempts to “answer” too many questions. Religious institutions are corrupt. This is not a surprise. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. It’s like saying that because our government is corrupt, all leadership is outright a bad thing. Correct leadership is nothing more than an optional method of doing something.

The Zeitgeist movement however is bullshit. Flat out. For it to work, you would have to eliminate the desire in humans to inherently be corrupt assholes. Just because some jack off says he isn’t, we should all just believe him because he keeps saying it? HA! Yeah, that worked really well with Stalin, Hitler, Nero, Constantine, All U.S. Presidents (save maybe less than 5), and most other world leaders.

Just do it already, smart asses. I’m tired of hearing about it.

- yes he is. that’s probably the best critique of Alex Jones you’re gonna get!

“Zeitgeist just explains the problems, Addendum actually comes up with a plausible solution.’

no it doesn’t. on both counts. and here’s the rub.

ZG attracts many young and keen people bacause it purports to not only outline
‘the problems’ but also offers ‘logical’ ’solutions’.
final solutions, perhaps.

what ZG reallly does is conflate 9/11 criminality [political awakening - "everything you know is wrong''] with an innate hatred of the church and authority ["everything you know is even more wrong''] and bounces all that into a logically fallacious set of [actually very old fashioned] assumptions about how we’re all going to behave once a certain set of ‘problems’ are removed, all of which look and sound like some buckmisnter fuller version of atlantis.
or perhaps Huxley’s.
it is very atractive, because people just want to watch ‘the truth’..and then ‘do something about it’……and they want to ‘join the good fight’…

as nietzsche said, if you want to lead millions [1,000,000,000] you have to get a bunch of zeroes behind you. ie - followers do not like to think. watching ZG and then thinking you have it all is not thinking. it is following.

it doesn’t really matter, except in the sense that ZG wastes many people’s time with concealed hatred and dead-end ’solution think’, when one could, say, be learning to integrate our common history in a positive way [spiritually speaking] like, for example, Carl Calleman does with his perspective on history with the Mayan long count as a background. That is poetry, and has far more in common with, say, a Rumi….in its sense of beauty, philosophical complexity and natural sacredness that is not animism, but more ’sacred cosmos’ in style.

once you get to the venus project and it’s sci-fi super-scape and the weird ‘painter’ dude behind it you realise you’ve been had. but many people don’t realise that because they’re young enough to be prone to this sort of proto-fascist movement. I know cause i went to quite a few meetings to check the whole thing out! it was quite fun, but the ‘believers’ were just that…really ideologically hyped and not open to logic [while at the same time, claiming logic as the basis of their many fallacious assumptions.]..

Blasting reductionist astrotheology all over the place in the current phase of anti-spiritual scientism is like shooting fish in a barrel, and that’s what dms murdoch seems to be doing. It’s a real shame, as the main overall teaching from these people appears to be;
‘it’s all mechanical bullshit, and always was’ …which is quite dark…and a very great shame.

still, I have a feeling that our current anti-spirit path is ending, and that all will be well.

slainte! and good health to you all.

The truth is, if zeitgeist survives in a society, it would have its own bad stuffs done in secret.
for instance, how do you control overpopulation in a RBE?
how do you control greed and fear in a RBE?
how do you merge religious groups in RBE?

social strata cannot be eradicated.
if money is abolished, other forms will rise up.
contentment is not in human nature, we are limited with our cash or other forms of exchange.

However, if all these questions can be duely addressed,
rather than getting a whole nation to implement it, i would like to see it first in a smaller society, like a state, where it is successfully practiced, even with all the social ills it has.

Thanks

our system is not just money based; its profit based, and some people hate giving up profit.

He has no plan for dealing with this problem, and this problem simply won’t go away because of the elegant arguments of scientific committees; such arguments have yet to subvert the profit system, but have only served to grow it.

His obsessive desire to avoid association with past social movements is disingenuous and dishonest. Zeitgeist, as many of the posts suggest, is by no means new in its ideas, its idealism, nor its utopianism

Unfortunately, i fear that the passion of the converts to Zeitgeist for the dream of a techno-utopia made possible by the “altered consciousness” of humanity will devolve into cultishness

This is because Zeitgeist offers little that is practical to people suffering from the continuing decline of Capitalism. Spreading the message is not sufficient– and Civil disobedience will inevitably involve political consequences, even though Zeitgeist pretends it can avoid the political.

Zeitgeist has at least 2 voices– in one voice it claims to avoid the political– in another voice it claims to challenge those political-economic groups that maintain the system as it is, which is implicitly political

Zeitgeist doesn’t believe in the “political party” but it creates a “movement” that functions organizationally to spread a new secular ideology and Faith in science (atheist identity politics). It acquires converts who will spread the New Gospel.

The spreading of this new scientific Gospel will initiate an evolutionary process that will 1) be able to avoid conflict or 2) engage in conflict via civil disobedience. What specifically the disobedience and boycotting will oppose is not clear– except the money system generally.

If the Depression gets worse, Zeitgeist may only survive it as a cult

First of all, if we are going to clear any confusion about what is being discussed, we must first define our terms. To that end I will be quoting from wikipedia, which I am assuming was not written by anyone is, and seems to define terms according to global understandings:

“Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. The term technocracy derives from the Greek words tekhne meaning skill and kratos meaning power, as in government, or rule. Thus the term technocracy denotes a system of government where those who have knowledge, expertise or skills compose the governing body. In a technocracy decision makers would be selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.”

My comment:Such professionals are paid for their knowledge and labor in the fields of endeavor, and are specialists. They are, therefore, better equipped and informed to arrive at decisions regarding these fields. Truth isn’t determined by popular vote. It is the result of research and testing of evidence at hand.

“Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

A linearized, pragmatic scheme is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

My comment: The scientific approach is prescribed as a means of knowing the truth and suggested as a means of studying those truths for means of best solving all problems faced by a society. This would reduce the dogmatic adherence to personal opinion and popular speculation, and allow for more reasonable, and rational approaches to arriving at decisions to improve all life on the planet.

“Systems theory is a trans-disciplinary (dependent on different aspects) approach that abstracts and considers a system as a set of independent and interacting parts. The main goal is to study general principles of system functioning to be applied to all types of systems in all fields of research. As a technical and general academic area of study it predominantly refers to the science of systems that resulted from Bertalanffy’s General System Theory (GST), among others, in initiating what became a project of systems research and practice. Systems theoretical approaches were later appropriated in other fields, such as in the structural functionalist sociology of Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann.”

My comment: This is the approach Peter has suggested as the perspective from which all scientific and social ideas and ideals would be studied and implemented. Which would understand the relationship, to the best of the available information at the time. Therefore, decisions made about one thing would be carried out with a basic understanding of their implications to other areas of life and human endeavor.

“Natural resource economics deals with the supply, demand, and allocation of the Earth’s natural resources. One main objective of natural resource economics is to better understand the role of natural resources in the economy in order to develop more sustainable methods of managing those resources to ensure their availability to future generations. Resource economists study interactions between economic and natural systems, with the goal of developing a sustainable and efficient economy.”

My comment: It is upon this principle in part that the Resource Based Economy is based. It also includes all of the other principles mentioned before as well as some others, all of which I, myself , may not be fully aware.

“Common Heritage of Mankind (also termed the common heritage of humanity, common heritage of humankind or common heritage principle) is a principle of international law which holds that defined territorial areas and elements of humanity’s common heritage (cultural and natural) should be held of trust for future generations and be protected from exploitation by individual nation states or corporations.”

My comment: Unlike Marxism, communism, and socialism, which all rely on the monetary system at least in part, as well as ownership of property and resources, the Resource Based Economy(RBE), with its common heritage does not suggest any of this. Within an RBE there is no sense of ownership of any kind. Everything is the heritage of future generations, and we should consider ourselves the stewards of those resources. Thereby generating a sustainable attitude to ensure there will be a future.

“A monetary system is anything that is accepted as a standard of value and measure of wealth in a particular region.[1] However, the current trend is to use international trade and investment to alter the policy and legislation of individual governments. The best recent example of this policy is the European Union’s creation of the euro as a common currency for many of its individual states. Modern currencies are not linked to physical commodities (silver or gold) and are not a contract to deliver a good or service. As such, the value of a currency fluctuates based on politics, credit worthinesss, perception, and emotion in addition to monetary policy.”

My comment: Since the RBE would seek to do away with currency of any kind, and all sense of private ownership, there would exist a greater awareness and sense of cooperation, rather than the divisionism of our current society of nations. The monetary system relies on scarcity, and thus can tend to generate it as a form of self defense and perpetuation. Money divides us from each other and creates a sense of competition rather than cooperation. Therefore, we are not able to progress as a species, culture, or society as well, or as quickly as we could in an RBE where resources, and ideas are shared rather than kept secret.

My summary: In an RBE there would be no government of any kind. People would be left to their own resources to decide what they would like to do for that day. They could live in the city or in the country side as they desire. They could travel the world, never really staying in one place for very long. They could learn anything they want about science, art, philosophy, sciences, or history since all education would be free and open. There would be no money of any kind. People could be as religious as they choose to be, since there is no one trying to take that away from anyone, including Peter Joseph. There would be no one starving anywhere in the world, except by their own choice. Everyone would live a life of abundance and freedom. Since almost all crimes are based on money and private ownership, there would be almost no crime. Since all wars are ostensibly based on money, ideologies, boarders, ownership, and scarce resources, those would be a thing of the past, and only ideologies would be a cause of disturbance. Even that would diminish with increased cooperation, closer ties and contact with other cultures. There would almost zero pollution since almost everything would be recycled in one way or another.

Further, it should be noted that while Peter is following and supporting the work of just one man along with his team, there are many others who are coming to the same conclusions without even knowing of Peter’s and Jacques work. In fact, their ideas are based on the collective works of others for several centuries worth. So, to deny what they are saying is to deny the conclusions of hundreds, and even thousands of respected scientists and scholars.