My Critique of ‘Zeitgeist’ Creator, Peter Joseph
Jay Dyer - October 19, 2008
As Zeitgeist creator Peter Joseph and Alex Jones were debating on air last week, all I could think was, “Man, this sounds just like everything I learned in my ‘Marxism and Critical Theory’ class two years ago.” That course was taught by a fellow who studied under intellectuals from the Frankfurt School, which claimed Marxist-olic Succession (lol). The school, originally called The Institute for Social Research, was founded by an extremely wealthy fellow, Felix Weil who, just like Engles, oddly supported Marxism (Engles was a rich stock owner). Those decently read in the conspiracy genre know that communism is itself a creation of wealthy capitalists by design. And, contrary to common assumptions, Marx didn’t think capitalism was even ‘wrong’: in fact, he saw it as a progressive step of Western culture out of feudalism which would be succeded by statism and dictatorship, which would then likely culminate in the no-state utopia where every man could awaken every day to fish, paint and re-connect with “nature.”
What was most interesting in Peter Joseph’s attempted defense was although he continually qualified his arguments, he stressed that he wasn’t a Marxist, socialist or a communist. Now, I know that communitarianism is somewhat of an outgrowth of both capitalism and communism, but it certainly swings more in the direction of communism. However, the gospel I heard from Joseph didn’t sound different from Marx at all.
Tags: Frankfurt School, Marx, Marxists, Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist, Zeitgeist Addendum
PERFECTIBILISTS: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism
Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones
October 20th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Anarchy in it’s purest form and potential. I’m wondering if, slightly modified, this might be an optimum choice. A more tribal influenced cohesiveness, built upon systems of barter and trade. Probably naive to think it would ever work though, on a mass scale.
As for ‘Zeitgeist’, I never personally got into that film, and basically distrust anything associated with Alex Jones. I’m surprised Rosie O’Donnell didn’t make an appearance in the film.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:06 am
The spam catcher put you in the queue again. I really don’t understand why it does that, to you in particular.
I just caught it right now. I should check the queue more often. Sorry.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:18 am
There was a guy who sent me articles to post on a regular basis that was into the whole anarchy philosophy. Site query: Fortman + Anarchy. Some of his arguments seemed convincing, but there were a few times that I really felt uncomfortable about posting his stuff. One of those, was an article praising Mikhail Bakunin! My specialty is revolutionaries and secret societies from the late 18th century to the mid-19th. I am quite familiar with Bakunin, Herzen, the Young Hegelians, Buonarroti and the Marxists - and they ain’t no lovers of freedom!
Erik Fortman’s a good writer though. I liked his straightforward -to-the-point style. “John Creasy, Man On Fire: Top-notch mind control” is still one of my favorites on the entire site.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:38 am
You missed the part when Peter Joseph differentiated Communism or Marxism from what he advocated. He said that, unlike Marxism, a “Resource Based Economy” is based solely on science and technology.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Scientism; Technocracy. Loud and clear.
Take a looky at Saint-Simon and his disciples who invented positivism for some background.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Man, I’m so glad I had an upper-level French Revolution class. It was completely secular and “neutral,” yet all throughout admitted the overall conspiracy. All of my texts admitted Illuminist and masonic influence, and Dr. B. (our now deceased professor) even talked about the origins of communism being in Weishaupt, as you and the Collins brothers noted in the recent interviews. The transition to Comte and sociology is also fascinating, as it moves us up to Marxism and the Frankfurt School.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
“All of my texts admitted Illuminist and masonic influence”
For years many orthodox “liberal” historians have admitted it in their own way, but they usually only go so far as a truly honest analysis would indict them as intellectual inheritors of Enlightenment ideology. Interspersed throughout, however, are “conservative” historians who examine the same evidence but whose conclusions are closer to truth. Two recommendations: Reinhart Koselleck, Critique and Crises: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society; and J. L Talmon, The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Yes, they admit it, but shy away. My professor (a self-professed aetheistic hedonict) said in class when this came up: “Saying the Illiminati Ordenen and the Freemasons were behind the Revolution is like saying drinking water caused it. There’s no direct connection. But I do think they may have had some minor role.” I said, “that’s a false analogy: drinking water is not the same as believing a revolutionary philosophy and putting it into practice.” He was, I believe, playing around. He was certainly not that supid.
Jay
February 16th, 2009 at 12:27 am
“As for ‘Zeitgeist’, I never personally got into that film, and basically distrust anything associated with Alex Jones.”
Yes I can tell, for if you had you would learn that the film has no Inclinations to Alex Jones whatsoever.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
i don,t get one think only from reading all of you.Marxism,Fascism,communism,capitalism…etc.who gives a shit what the ideology.it is one simple question actually.DO YOU WANT TO LIVE A BETTER LIFE OR NOT?If yes well START THINK WHY YOU DON,T HAVE IT NOW.WHAT IS THE CAUSE.the guy(Peter Joseph)put it very clearly:let,s be as one working together for the common good.If you all sooooooooo smart(obviously you are if i rely on the comments here)why just don,t combine efforts and put them in action so you too to have a better life.i assume you what too.if not sorry for this post.
I mean what do you think is wrong with this idea.utopia???…..i don,t really think you mean that.insecurity,scariness….most likely.that is what i think of you
oh man i,ll loose my job…BRO THERE WILL BE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR A JOB
oh man i,ll loose my money….BRO THERE ILL BE NO NEED ON THEM
oh man i,ll not be a hot shot ….WHO SAID SO???the way i see it.THEEEEEN we will worship the really deserving people.the SMART PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOURSELFS.not some rich mother……s who…YOU SEE THEY HAVE MONEY
March 25th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I have watched the movie zeitgeist and also watched the interview of Aaron Russo by Alex Jones. I must say that both documentaries are proffessional except for 1 thing, once you are done watching those two videos you find something is missing: reference to the Papacy! Anyone who has conducted research on political and economical history of either Europe, Middle east or America will definately encounter the dirty tricks of the Papacy since the church rose to power in 538 AD. The rather conspicous absence of any reference to the Papacy especially when talking about banking makes one wonder if Alex Jones and Peter Joseph are genuinely ignorant of that connection or are yet another of the many Jesuits who pump out half truths about the dirty tricks of the Catholic church in an effort to confuse the world and lead them away from realising that all the Papacy wants is to be worshiped! Kindly google this name to get more insite what I am talking about: Walter Vieth. The man is a former catholic and he has done an awesome job of exposing the lies and atrocities perpetrated by the church. Finally, get hold of this book: The Great Controversy by E G White, or just read it online at http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp , you don’t have to agree with her to see that what the world has been made to believe is not the truth.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Weez all tools for not speaking of the big bad papacy and the Jesuits hiding under ever bed. Gotcha!
March 31st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Kabo,
I have done extensive research on that very topic. What do you find so awful? The papacy has, I would argue, been a bastion of western civilization and a preserver of culture. What is this arbitrary date of 538? Who and what are you referring to? Gregory the Great? Pope Leo had as much power before him and his courage saved Rome from being sacked and pillaged by Atilla the Hun in the 400s!
No one denies there have been bad popes and bad Jesuits: the Jesuits have been supressed numerous times by the papacy. No one worships the pope. Even Benedict’s famous “new world order” statement actually says that only world order that works is one based on worship of Christ. Why do you think the papacy has always opposed Freemasonry? Why do you think all the Satanists dress up like priests?
Ellen White was, I hate to say, a fake. In fact, with several SDA pals, I know your position quite well. It is not difficult to show that Sunday was the Lord’s Day far before Constantine. Just take a gander at the Church Fathers of the first few centuries, who met and worshipped on Sunday. It was not a creation of the beast of the papacy.
-Jay
March 31st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
It’s been awhile since you wrote this article Jay. Then, all of a sudden, there’s some new comments in just the last week. I think it is because, for the search “Peter Joseph,” this post turns up on the first page results at Google.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I thought the Zeitgeist movies were very interesting, personally. The only thing I really had a hard time supporting were the communities developed in teh Venus Project. While the ideas sound good, the whole thing does sound like Marxism or Communism. The reason I’m posting is mostly because I would like to see something genuine. I want to help fight the fed and all that, but would like more in depth resources. I’ve never been the type to believe everything I see and hear without first researching it. Any help finding something real would be appreciated.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Lol. Yes, I’ve been getting a lot of hits from this still. People have also been linking your critiqes from my site as well.
-Jay
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Jay you seem well educated and knowledgable about Marxism and Communism. I trusts you have a better knowledge knowledge of both of these than I, but I can see a few incorrect arguments in your response to the Zeitgeist Adendum, which I think you should reconsider.
Firstly, in the movie, peter never claims not to share any marxist ideals (he may have said differently in the Alex Jones show, but perhaps he hasn’t educated himself well enough on marxism to know). What is true is that his proposed Resource Based Economy is not communism.
Communism, as you said, has historically started with and held a strong central state. What he advocated was that each person start to educate themselves and become independent as much as possible, from a central political and ecenomic system.
The system he is advocating has many of the marxist ideals, but the fact that it aims reaches to reach this state through autonomous self-reliance, rather than a strong, central and dictatorial government nullifies many of the comparison you make between this ideas and those of communist leaders.
Also, you question why peter attacks religion. Then assume (with no real basis) that his reason is the same as Marx and Feuerbach, despite the fact that Peter has claimed no common ideology with either.
Actually, you did answer the questions correctly earlier in you post, but without the question attached, by saying ‘religion (especially Christianity) is a fundamental source of hierarchy.’ And that is the correct answer. Peter doesn’t say the teachings of jesus are wrong (I think few would), but rather the materialistic and hierarchical system of religion is wrong. The teachings of jesus, and budu, and moses, and all the prophets of various beliefs are philosophical teachings without the insitution of religion present, and the movie applauds, not attacks philosophy.
By the way the belief that without a God ‘universal moral standards [...] are meaningless’ is a very flawed approach. Most athiest, agnostics, and even spiritual people without a central belief system believe that there are universal moral standards for mankind, but don’t think they have to be dictated to us by an almighty being. You will find that many of the greatest philosphers, religious or not (e.g. Socrates), believed that there are universal moral standards inherent in human beings. This is one of the many points I dissagree with Peter and Jacques. Humans are not black slates. We are the result of both nature and nurture. We are born with some sense of right and wrong, it enables the survival f our species, but we are easily maliable and our sense of right and wrong often becomes distorted by society, in the same way that the teachings of ‘love thy neighbour’ and ‘turn the other cheek’ were turned into the crusades and inquisition by the religion.
I don’t agree with a lot of what Peter states, especially some of the conspiracy nonesense, but I do agree that the religious, political, and economic institutions we have in place are deeply flawed. We can do a lot better, but we really need to stop an take a critical look at our society as it is today.
April 4th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Nice one Jay. But you are forgetting one thing my brother, the people who are saying what the world knows now about the nefarious activities of the papacy happen to be former Catholics. Ever heared of the word REFORMATION? It did not envolve just the laity, priests like Luther spearheaded it! As for your argument that: The papacy has been a bastion of western civilization and a preserver of culture, I would ask; whose culture were they preserving? How did they do it? Through several horrific inquisitions maybe of which at some time Joseph Ratzinger was head? Sorry my brother, but for you and those who have chosen to practice selective ignorance some of the things that I am raising here have been apologised for by the Papacy! My challenge to you is to re-do your research and if you are honestly seeking the truth, you shall fill it and it will set you free. The one thing that I can give the Papacy credit for is that Europe became wealthy through the crusades campaigns of which Popes like Urban II are known to have been the champion of!
April 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
A lot of sense in what you are saying JustAFewPoints. I think the greatest weak spot of every human being is that we want to do as we wish without anyone telling us what is wrong, good, or right for us. If you study almost all of criticism leveled against Chritianity or any believe system, its foundation is : WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN DO OR NOT DO! The powers- that- be has capitalised on this weakness by providing for our human comforts which has dulled our thinking capacity to a level where we accept almost everything without questioning the motive.
Most people hate the word conspiracy, but the question is: have we sat down and looked at all the facts. Allow me to go to the bible, when God dished out punishment to Adam for his disobedience, he was given an agrarian mode of life. There is a very good reason for this: As long as you are well fed no one except God alone can command your audience. Take food away from a mans table and he starts to pay attention!
History shows that those who have the might to conquer have been steadily taking away land that was used for agricultural purposes and turning it into some other economic activity. obviously when you displace people you have to give them something to apeace them or else you will soon have a revolution on your hands that will reverse all your efforts.
The appeacement came in the form of lucrative jobs in high density settlements that allowed for more people to now willingly quit agriculture and move to these settlements. In our age it is now technology and the fast urban life. Just imagine JustAFewPoints if your government was to come to you with an offer that they are giving you a 20 hectare plot so you can start farming to feed yourself and family, will you take? I bet you will think whoever came up with that idea is insane!
But consider this, after your harvest you can take 10 bags of grain to Jay and exchange for whaever you need. That way you and your community don’t need the federal system that is now running you life! Of course those who are after controlling who you worship know this, which is why your economic independence and that of the entire planet has been curtailed so we are all answerable to a few mafia who command the banking system, international politics, security and even your livelihood!
April 4th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I don’t know exactly how much power the papacy exercises, for good or bad. What is certain is that with over one million catholics in the world, over many of whom the word of the pope has a lot of influence, the pope is an excesively powerful man.
Yet, I can not for the life of me understand what legitimate right he - or the catholic chruch - has to such influence. Is it not claimed that he he is God’s appointed voice / representative on earth? How the heck can anyone reconsile that with the catholics chruch’s, and especially the papacy’s, history of violence, greed, and manipulation. Not to mention that the papacy keeps on changing it’s mind on issues. Consider abortion for example: up until around 1840 the papacy said it was ok to get an abotion in the very early weeks of pregnancy, because the child - or potential child - had not yet resieved the touch of god.
I highly doubt that the papacy is bent on direct world domination or plotting to enslave mankind, but they do have way more power than anyone elected by a bunch of stuffy old clergymen, who do not see the suffering of the catholic people, and of people in general.
Also, can anyone tell me how the catholic church was able to declare bankruptcy a few years ago, when they clearly have way more money than they can figure out what to do with (I mean for crying out loud, everything they own is covered in gold and jewels, and they are still carry that stuff around).
April 4th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
There is an old English saying that goes like this: The greatest trick that the devil pulled on humanity is convincing many people that he does not exist! This has been one of the greatest problem faced by anyone who tried to tell the world about God. The real enemy here is Satan but until he pulls his master piece of deception (Mathew 24), he cannot reveal himself to anyone. Go through the entire bible and you will note that only 1 person get to meet Lucifer in person; that is Jesus. The reason is that Jesus already knew lucifer so there was no point in hiding from him. For someone who is wondering why Satan would want to decieve us, go to Isaiah 14:12-17 and consider the oath by Lucifer.
Obviously if satan cannot do the dirty work that will redirect worship away from God to him, he needs a middle man for the job which is where the papacy comes in (Revelation 13:2). Over the centuries Satan has nurtured in humanity a spirit of rebelion and covertiousness, the target being worship. Consider the titles we give to the so called dignitaries: King, My Lord, Your Worship, His Honor, Father, Holy See! If you know your bible the last two are down right blasphemeous! (Mattew 23:9)
But like I said in my last post, when you need to sway humanity in one direction, all you need is to provide for their comforts and they will soon forget about the dangers that you may be posing to them. The papacy has heen very successful in this regard. With the awesome and limitless resources that it commands (who do you think owns the federal reserve bank?) they have been able to cater for the day to day needs of many people globally. They run schools, hospitals, opharnages and many other philanthropic missions. And obviously this is done under the name of serving God so many people do not stop and question: what am I gaining or losing in all this.
Back to the Famous interview of Aaron Russo by Alex Jones, Nick Rockefeller is said to have called Russo an idiot over an answer he gave over women voter rights. The question people should be asking themselves is why are The Rockefellers, Rothchilds and the rest of secret society families hell bent on running the plannet! Anyone who had ever tasted leadership reigns will tell you that it is a pain so why would someone put themselves through such dark schemes for so many centuries? Why did the papacy go to so much trouble in preventing ordinary people from reading and studying the bible for themselves. Why do we have bibles with funny interpretations, some even with verses missing?
The answer is simple: corveting worship! Unfortunately there are so many good christians within the Catholic church who are not aware of what is happening. Most of humanity is concerned with their daily bread and butter issues so do not readily questions the motive behind certain actions but God is urging them to move out in Revelation 18:4.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Just a few:
“Peter never claims not to share any marxist ideals.”
Jay: I never said he was an open Marxist, I said everything he said is what Marx said and, it is. Marx said the state would evaporate eventually because Marxism is predicated on the perfectibility of man. I said that Eastern Bloc communism was statist, but Marx’s own views were that the state would dwindle away and no longer be necessary, as man came into harmony with nature. My point about the dictatorial control is that this how this stuff works. It sounds great. But in praxis, it’s tyranny and the state becomes god.
Again, my claim was not that Joseph IS reading line by line from Marx, but that he sounds like a guy reading off his notes from philosophy 201. I’m sure he has formulated these views with some thought, but his attack on religion as man-made IS what Feuerbach said. Alex is right, its just re-packaged Marxism.
Just a Few:
“Peter doesn’t say the teachings of jesus are wrong (I think few would).”
He most certainly does–his films spend much time attempting to connect Christ with sun gods and ancient dieties in Jordan Maxwellian fashion, loosely and irresponsibly doing eisegesis on various words. Its a complete denial of what Jesus taught.
Jesus is not on par with Buddha and other world teachers-He claimed to be the divine Son of God, of one nature with His Father. If this is not true, then He is a liar and not a great ascended master. On the contrary, He is the Logos of the Father (John 1:1-2), the only true God.
Just a Few:
“By the way the belief that without a God ‘universal moral standards [...] are meaningless’ is a very flawed approach. Most athiest, agnostics, and even spiritual people without a central belief system believe that there are universal moral standards for mankind, but don’t think they have to be dictated to us by an almighty being.”
Jay:
Actually, this is a killer argument. Its not that they aren’t trying to be spiritual or moral or whatever, its that there is no grounds for believing we should be spiritual or moral, given their presuppositions (that is, no God).
-Jay
April 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Kabo:
“Ever heared of the word REFORMATION?”
Jay: Yes, I attended a reformed protestant seminary.
Kabo: “Through several horrific inquisitions maybe of which at some time Joseph Ratzinger was head?”
Jay: Lol. Even secular scholars (Henry Kamen, for example) now admit the Spanish Inquisition, which was state-run, killed relatively few people. All these modern myths about “millions of people bruned,” are just that–myths. There were only a few million people in Europe–impossible for the Inquisition to “burn millions.” More people die in the US in a year from violent crimes than all the people killed by the Inquisition.
There has not been a Holy Office of the Inquisition in decades. Ratzinger was head of the CDF, it’s replacement, which has no authority outside the Catholic Church (and little within!).
Think about it–what’s the only institution of the last several hundred years that has protected private property, preserved art and culture, individual rights, human dignity, opposed Freemasonry and communism, upheld the sanctity of marriage and family, and put a check on the state from being god? The Church, for all its flaws.
April 10th, 2009 at 5:01 am
I think that Alex Jones was being kind of a douche bag during the interview. What was that crazy, hyper patriotic sounding, rant??? He is also interrupting Peter Joseph all the time and doesn’t let him finish. That is not very admirable on his part.
He keeps saying over and over that he likes and agrees with most of the Zeitgeist movement but he keeps interrupting and rebutting way before Peter finishes his sentences. He is kind of annoying.
April 12th, 2009 at 6:54 am
Jay: “My point about the dictatorial control is that this how this stuff works”
There is a difference between the means and the ends. Maybe marx and peter have the same ideal of an equal society (ends), but the ways the communist of the past attempted to reach this point (means), which has resulted in a totalitarian state, and the way peter suggest, are very different.
Peter does not propose a strong central party to overthrow the current systems, the opposite in fact. He suggest individual autonomous control, the will enable a community of collective contribution.
Jay: “Jesus is not on par with Buddha and other world teachers-He claimed to be the divine Son of God”
If this is the only moral you were able to take away from the life and actions of jesus, then I think you missed a lot. Jesus actually shares many teachings with budda and other philosophical leaders of the past. Peter emphazises that the virtue of religion is philosophy, and Jesus’ teaching share common ground with a lot of the higher philosophical teachings.
Speaking of Buddha. I hope you realize than many buddhist and Hunduists consider Jesus a holy figure too. In there line of thought Jesus was the son of God, and God himself, just as we all are. It’s only the Judeo-Christian belief system that assumes God is apart from this world and claiming you are god or the son of god is blashphemy. Accoring to nthe monistic religions, this is just a realization of the truth.
Jay: “there is no grounds for believing we should be spiritual or moral, given… that is no God”
Uhhmmm, going back to what was said before. Your belief that there needs to be an outside source to tell us what is right and wrong is just that, your belief. Despite not being Christian’s there are many who find a common/ universal moral code that humans live by. Does it really seem that unlikely to you that people can part right from wrong without an outside, devine lawmaker? Maybe it based on survival of the species, or an intelligent understanding of what makes for a stable society.
April 12th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“Peter does not propose a strong central party to overthrow the current systems”
He subscribes to a technocratic cybernated solution, the sacrosanctity of scientists, and technology as saviour. A true functioning technocracy is absolute: a dictatorship. There’s a reason why Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon (the original technocratic-industrial utopian-socialist) was commemorated by the Bolsheviks as one of the “Great Socialist Thinkers and Revolutionaries.”
“Peter emphazises that the virtue of religion is philosophy, and Jesus’ teaching share common ground”
No, Peter’s polemic mocks Jesus and Christianity in the same manner as occultists, theosophists and marxists, hastily utilizing the same pseudo-historical occult propaganda that has long been refuted by scholars.
“Your belief that there needs to be an outside source to tell us what is right and wrong is just that, your belief.”
Actually, I think he’s referring (ultimately) to judgment. It is not only the fact that unmoral behavior is proscribed, but that offenses will be punished. One life, one death, one judgement. If Hitler or Stalin had genuinely believed that they would be punished for their deeds, they might have just thought twice about certain actions. An atheist could care less about divine retribution, while a believer in reincarnation might still be comforted in the fact that a second, third or fourth chance will be forthcoming.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:10 am
I have just paid a visit to wikipedia and catholic encyclopedia to check out the meaning of capitalism, communism and democracy. I know the USA and Russia are not particularly the best of friends, at least on the surface, over the differences of these ideologies that they practice. But my verdict is that any one who live in this countries and think that they are subscribing to either of the two ideologies is deluded because the only difference I can say exists between the two is this:
Capitalism: it is tyranny by the majority
Communism: it is tyranny by the minority
Let me elaborate, in both ideologies there is a group of people ruling or running the country, they may be elected or choose to stay indefinately in power (Cuba). The bottom line is in both ideologies you are taxed and don’t have much of a right to say what gets done or not done with your tax, there are laws that are passed that some individuals may not agree with but aslong as majority agrees its okay. Resources within the country are not equally available to individuals.
Marx himself was deluded to think and believe that a classless society is possible because the root of class is character; birds of the same feather flock together! Our differences are what form the classes that we belong to. There are some like Aaron Russo who will say it is not right to control people’s lives and subject them to economic and mental slavery, but you also have those who think joining the CFR is an honor because they don’t see anything wrong in owning another man’s life!
My point is that you cannot take human behaviour in its present form and dichotomise it according to social and political ideologies because we are just too complex for that.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“A true functioning technocracy is absolute: a dictatorship”
Except the proposal has been for scientists to come forth with the solutions to technical problems in society, not for them to govern the way people choose to lead their life within the boudaries of that society. Look I personally don’t see Peter’s vision of utopia as very realistic, but I think assuming that a society lead by scientific thought is any more totalitarian than one lead by self-profit or religious doctrine has little ultimate basis.
Instead of assuming that Peter wants to turn over society in the same way that commmunist have chosen, perhaps listen to what he actually advocated at the end of the film - that each person become more autonomous, self-sufficient, and less supportive of corrupt structures currently in place. Maybe the collaboration of autonomous parties (whout a hierarchy) that have the best of the community at heart because it works in their self-interest could lead to a slightly more egalitarian society. If remniscient of any earlier philosophies then I believe it is anarchy (aka. community/non governance), not communism we are talking about.
I said: “Peter emphazises that the virtue of religion is philosophy (which includes the teaching of jesus)”
Terry: “No, Peter’s polemic mocks Jesus and Christianity”
Actually peter claims to disprove what he calls the mythology of jesus, including the virgin birth, the miracles, and the reincarnation. I don’t agree with this, but it really has nothing to do with the argument about philosophy I made before so I’m not sure why you bring it up as a counter-argument. Peter ‘mocks’ christianity for what he calls interlectual materialism, all the while sying there is virtue in the philosophy within and this is what the teachings of jesus include. I find it unfortunate that the life of jesus and the prinicples that he taught are constantly overshadowed by the story of his devinity and pain of his death.
As for judgement, you argume that if there was no punishment people wouldn’t care about right or wrong. Firstly, this would mean that we as humans have no morals, only fear of punishment after life. If we are truly made in God’s image and he has to fear monger us in order to behave according to what he terms moral, then I have to wonder what kind of god we are talking about.
I would rather hope we are made in the image of a god who knows right from wrong and whats to do what is right. Born with an innate sense of right an wrong, but unfortunately sometimes currupted by the world around us as we grow up. This is what I was mentioning earlier.
If we are born with a sense of right or wrong, you don’t have to believe in the judeo-christian god in order to behave, in order to do the right thing. On the reverse, if you know what is right and wrong, but choose to do wrong you have to live with the guilt of that, unless you have a devine being who is willing to forgive you no matter what wrongs you have done. This may explain why athiests have the lowest percentage of criminals respective to their total numbers, while devout christians and muslims commit violent and often hateful crimes, or why the strongly secular contries in north western Europe have the highest proportion of charity relative to GDP, while stronly religious countries give very littlke comparatively.
FYI, Hitler was not an athiest, he actually used a lot of Christian rhetoric, mythology and symbolism to bolster his ideals and promote them to the masses. And Stalin wasn’t a selfish person who did evil for private gain, but an insane person who thoiught what he was doing was right for the country. I highly doubt that belief in devine judgement would have altertered the insanity of his actions, perhaps only the manner in which he conducted them (as we have seen Christian’s are just as capable of insanely cruel acts as the people of any other religion).
April 13th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Absolutely right JustAFewPoints. As I had pointed out in an earlier post, one of the problems that plaques humanity is ‘the let me do it my way style’ and ‘who are you to tell me what is right or wrong’. This is why Peter seems to like is ‘the mockery of Jesus’s divinity and lordship’ strategy because the bible calls a wrong by its right name, a wrong!
It is very interesting that the philanthropy of the biblical stories are nicely swept under the carpet when its critics like Peter start bashing the existence of God. Let us just do a recap from the Zeitgeist movie; a clip in there says that God always wants money! Obviously whoever came up with that concept must have been reading from the wrong bible because mine tells me that the requirement of me by God to return tithe and offering is attest of obedience! God says in Malachi 10 verse 3, Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it! There is a clear promise of a blessing from God there so if you choose not to trust him, who should be blamed.
The problem here friends is that people like to be lied to. Just listen to this absolutely ridiculous teaching from the catholic church: in their penance teaching the laity are made to believe that every time they give to the church (”purgatory”) a soul is released from hell to heaven. Nowhere in the bible do you find this nonsense but Catholics believe it anyway. The question then is: who should be blamed here? God or the Pope? What is happening is simply crime in the name of God and God has nothing whatsoever with that money because it is theft and paganism! The practice is also very popular in Pentecostal Churches which originate mainly from Nigeria and East Africa.
Check the people who attend these churches, the popular saying from them is this: It does not matter which church you go to as long as you have a relationship with Christ! Absolute nonsense, the devil himself has a relationship with Christ; its called enmity!
April 13th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“I believe it is anarchy”
No argument there. Adam Weishaupt’s philosophy was primitivist proto-anarchism, and anarchism proper came out of a schism between competing socialist/communist revolutionaries. Yes, I agree: Joseph’s rhetoric has much in common with those who preceded him, just as Marx has a lot in common with Bakunin and vice versa.
“… athiests have the lowest percentage of criminals respective to their total numbers”
Source(es)?
“I highly doubt that belief in devine judgement would have altertered the insanity of his actions”
Well I like to think that he and Hitler got [will get] there’s - with whatever punishment the Lord sees fit.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
“I highly doubt that belief in devine judgement would have altertered the insanity of his actions”
I think JustAFewPoints got it right there. A few of the books and video documentaries on Hitler that I have gone through indicate that Hitler knew who God is. He purposely set out to oppose the bible, especially in trying to defy prophecy. Kindly check out a book by H H Meyers, Battle of The Bibles, to get an indepth story on why Hitler did what he did.
Well I like to think that he and Hitler got [will get] there’s - with whatever punishment the Lord sees fit.
But having acknowledged that Hitler was delibaretly setting a course against God does not justify our rush conclusions that God ccould not stop him or even save him. Consider these few verses:
Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
April 25th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
‘Check the people who attend these churches, the popular saying from them is this: It does not matter which church you go to as long as you have a relationship with Christ! Absolute nonsense, the devil himself has a relationship with Christ; its called enmity!’
Kabo. Just out of interest what do you think christianity is really about if not having a relationship with Christ? I’m collecting peoples opinions on this so bear with me! Thanks
May 8th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
You see Marx, I see Gene Roddenberry.
If a society without money is communism, i am communist.
If a society without money is fascism, i am fascist.
Call it the way you want, money is the cancer.
And anyway, do some more research .. BEFORE marx, BEFORE CEASAR .. there was a world without money, and they were not communists .. they were just humans.
If we can finally get rid of this shit, the better.
Alex Jones still try to look smart, and then he seems offended by someone that DOES NOT believe in Jesus.
PJ was too soft on that .. THERE IS NO GOD, NO SATAN, NO INVISIBLE PEOPLE, THERE NEVER WAS!!!
May 15th, 2009 at 2:51 am
“…communism is itself a creation of wealthy capitalists by design.”
Clearly, you speak of economic communism, in complete disarray from the actual form of communism (as individualism, per Nietzsche) which is the true form of what Marx was referring to (i.e. “humanitarianism;” i.e. “natural humanism”) in his earlier, less economic years. To speak of the former is fine under economic circumstances; the point is to have the world rid itself of the poison of POLITICAL ECONOMICS in light of pure exchange economics.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Incredible, It seems you watch the film but unhappily you did not understand a single word. the first step to understand is to learn…
June 15th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I think you’ve read too many history text books my friend. Not that I haven’t, but it seems that you are unable to grasp the concept of “just because it is written, does not mean that it is true”. I’m basing this on: your original post and your numerous replies.
You must, of course, know Marx was the philosopher, not the implementer, of any “Communist” path. And you must know that Marx and his philosophy was a product of the times, his upbringing, and what he thought the future might be.
What Joseph presents is much different “Marxism” or “Communism”. For me it is quite plain to see, but as I alluded to before, I believe your knowledge of facts has blurred your ability to infer context and actually think critically.
I shall write no more unless you wish to engage me in a dialogue. Many thanks
July 14th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I think Peter handled the Alex Jones interview extremely well. Alex is very annoying and peter came across very calm with great responses to all questions. Peter doesn’t speak of a Utopian society just a society based on relevant education & cutting edge technology.
“Marx didn’t think capitalism was even ‘wrong’: in fact, he saw it as a progressive step of Western culture out of feudalism which would be (succeded) by (statism) and dictatorship, which would then likely culminate in the no-state utopia where every man could awaken every day to fish, paint and re-connect with “nature.” ”
1. What is a “no-state utopia”
2. Why would a dictatorship likely culminate into a “no-state utopia”
July 16th, 2009 at 5:18 am
“he stressed that he wasn’t a Marxist, socialist or a communist.”
Why? Because they’re dirty words to many.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
You guys make me feel quite stupid. However!
I rather like the idea of clever people sitting about putting their ideas into computers and someone/thing actually evaluating them and making them happen - but then, there is this one little thing… tiny really,
Where would I fit into this grand scheme of things? Who will clean the toilets, empty the trash? What would a not so clever person like me do all day? Okay I would produce children, but they would grow up and then? With all the health and wealth I would likely live longer - doing what for goodness sake?
I must say not having prisons would be a bonus. I can’t think of a single good thing that came about because we shoved people into little boxes for years and years or killed them.
Much as I like much of what is proposed I can’t imagine it actually happening. I remember when I was at school - a long, long time ago - I did something wrong and for my punishment I had to write an essay titled: A world without money. I cant remember what I wrote only that whatever it was got me into more trouble than the thing I did to get the essay in the first place. I was poor as a child and a world without money appealed to me no end.
I live in South Africa and we have a multitude of problems because we have huge unemployment and many of those are unemployable. As a result, we have a crime issue in this contry. I am a capitalist (I think - a bit wobbly on that these days) but if we don’t start giving people money to live on pretty soon, we are going to have riots and all sorts of nasty things happening here. People can only carry on for so long without resources and education and food. Winter brings that home quickly. The cold makes us more desperate. So if Peter is wrong, what is a potential solution?
In case you don’t know this, Africans look after extended families which can run into numbers from 15 to 26. Often there is only one person working to support this extended family. Their natural generosity prevents the working person from prospering to any extent because all his/her money goes to feed the family and perhaps educate the children. An African cannot eat in front of others who do not have food. This is not communism. This is surving.
I don’t know how I will get your response. I’m old you see and still quite stupid about these things. I am however interested in what you think.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Notice that some of the problems started when the public was convinced to own stock. Back in the 50’s up to the 70’s, many kept the same job and worked for the same company for years. Others were business owners such as those who owned family restaurants, hardware stores, handyman companies, etc. Unfortunately, big corporations dominated and created hostile take-overs with smaller companies or others were taken over and broken down into pieces. It was to help shareholders. The general public was dragged along. Many lose jobs just to increase market share. Most have no idea how stock works. Then the bastards turned the real estate market into a stock game. Many have lost. This is not capitalism!!!!!! Most Americans no longer no how the be entrepreneurs. We now are dependent on either a corporate job or the government. It is sad. until we empower and reject these ideas, we are screwed and dependent. Not to mention the debt many Americans have as well as America itself.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I’m new to Zeitgeist, just watched 1 movie yesterday and 1 today. These are my immediate observations:
- Why have I never heard of this before?
- I’m not even going to attempt to critique it until I study this further.
- Like the Bible you can’t read and understand in 1 day. It takes time and investigation.
- This shakes the foundations of my superstitious beliefs about open markets, efficiency etc. having worked in automotive industry all my life. A simple idea presented about supply and demand and it’s affects on cost and all its implications.
- Definitely I need to understand what the so called facts are and that the accuser is not merely using similar tactics as the accused. I.e. in 1 of the movies some report showed up on Bush’s desk 2 days prior to 9/11. How did they know?
- Information over load right now.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Religion does not create a “good” person; it was a “good” person who created religion in order to make everyone else feel guilty of sin for not following their religion. Leaders learned early on that fear of an almighty power who punished sinners was a great idea to encourage the masses to obey their leaders. This was happening thousands of years before Moses. Moses got the idea from the Egyptians and the Egyptians got the idea from preceding cultures. The first witch doctor or holy man began it all, but he just couldn’t write it down - he couldn’t write - or date it - no calender. Even Genesis, with the Law of Moses, was not written down until hundreds of years after his death. Whatever was written on the stone tablets was not in Hebrew. Moses was not a Jewish scholar, for he had been educated as an Egyptian prince.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Thats very good to know… thanks
September 29th, 2009 at 8:24 am
WOW. Is that all you people can talk about? “OH, HE’S AN ANARCHIST!!” “No, he’s not an anarchist… HE’S A COMMUNIST!!!” “NO, HE’S A TECHNOCRAT!!” Can’t you just stop labeling him or his ideas and study and understand them for what they are?
October 24th, 2009 at 3:08 am
…lots to digest guruplanet, i agree… gut instincts tell me that the moves being made are leading to the one world gov, why not???
lots of religious talking heads have predicted this for decades, common sense tells us that the US directs global wealth and politricks…
we over-indulge, watch too much tv, buy into everything the pop culture tells us, listen to degrading and backward thinking music, blindly follow old ideologies, drive gas guzzling vehicles, eat out of foil bags and plastic wrappers and aluminum cans… we are a product of our parents, and their parents and their…..
what to do?
where to live?
the addendum suggests some great alternatives but are they realistic for each of us?
do your best, thats what i plan to do
stay out of walmart, cook some vegetables, read a book, ride a bike, use a cloth shopping bag, drink from the same coffee cup every day and most of all RESPECT OTHERS and dont be a dick!
November 7th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I watched all Zeitgeist movies, including the latest “The Zeitgeist Movement - Orientation Presentation”. Based upon their own information, there are two possible ways to interpret their agenda…
1. It’s all a load of trippy-hippy nonsense - a utopian fantasy that has simply not been fully thought through because they know it will never happen.
2. It’s an attempt to camouflage the keeping of control with the existing money-men who currently run the show… let people think they are choosing to shake-off the oppressor when all they would be doing is letting him in through the back door.
Why do I say this? …because of the fundamental points that Zeitgeist Movement fails to address… Who would be in charge of programming the all-encompassing computer system and how could they be trusted? How will religious disputes and tribalism be controlled? Who chooses the ones that will be the elite controllers of everything? How totalitarian would the system have to be in order to clamp-down upon dissent over centrally-controlled decisions about diet and amount of food rationed-out to each citizen? Would the elite controlling everything really not give themselves a better lifestyle than what the masses get, or give their own families special treatment? THIS IS NOT A UTOPIA, IT IS A DYSTOPIA.
The elite that run things now would still be the elite running things in a marxist communalist mish-mash. This is most likely the back-up plan so that when the existing system fails, it will be introduced as the “people’s choice”… where we are to yet again trust unknown elites all because it’s meant to be for our “own good”.
There is no neat little package to save humanity… so long as any form of government is required, it will be abused and we will be left holding the shaft as usual. In reality, the Eden Project would give the individual less freedom than he has now.
November 21st, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I can’t understand why such well informed people can’t draw a common conclusion. First of all the notion of conspiracy is just plain stupid. Everything that we do in society is conspiratorial. We gather in groups and think of ways to pull the other group out of business. I am now inventing a system which is meant to replace the old way of developing web sites and applications. I am fully aware that it will probably leave people on the streets and the people sponsoring me would advertise it as if it were the best thing out there even if it isn’t.
About Karl Marks and Engles well, i’ve lived in communism and anyone who says that communism is a lot better then capitalism should just move to North Korea. I mean it. It’s easy to play with fire from a distance since you won’t get burned.
Communists are not less capitalist then Bush’s nazi grandfather. While in communism, you won’t be able to speak your mind as you will be arrested and charged with who knows who’s murder, in capitalism, people won’t listen to you. In my neighborhood that the US bombed(it was near an important railway communists prosecuted and charged hundreds of people for just one supposed murder based on rumors of owning dollars). Additionally in communism you won’t be allowed to purchase more then half a kilo of sugar per month per family member and no contraception will be allowed since we need more slaves to run the machines. Socialism on the other hand I can understand as a general concept.
Anarchy defines lots of things. But about it I can’t figure out two things:
1. When did punk migrate from neonazi propaganda(see Sid Vicious’s swastika t-shirt) to Regan Youth and NOFX(I am kind of a fan of the latter and i know both bands were started of by jews which i also am).
2. How is an anarchist convention even possible? I mean if it’s anarchy I wouldn’t even show up. Otherwise it would just be an organised thing wouldn’t it?
I suppose on a more philosophical approach anarchy is the universal law of equilibrium that we don’t need to interfere with what is already perfect in it’s design. I can only imagine a manager or an it consultant restructuring Jupiter’s surface.
A university professor once said:
“Culture is what you have left once you forgot everything”. He also said to me “A jid is a jew who left the building.”
Some people just don’t want to think for themselves. They think that all that that’s good was written in the past and now we’re just shadows of our former selves and some other well they just want to argue. To me that’s just stupid. Prove me wrong any time and I’m a happy guy. I’ll be just a bit wiser then before.
With all this said and hopefully with an open mind let’s get back to conspiracy and our criminal gangs.
There is individual consciousness and there is a sort of collective consciousness. This latter factor determines what we perceive as a conspiracy. If 9 out of 10 store owners were moral decent human beings and the 10′th was a scumbag who do you think will win in the long run? It’s natural selection, another misinterpretation faulty named evolution while it’s just plain transformation. The alfa males(i say this cause males usually tend to destroy everything) always get on top while the rest still wait for Jesus or some other myth(my personal one is picked up from the Internet. It’s the pink invisible poney or something).
What we see today as conspiracy is leftover from the comet hitting earth 70 thousand years ago and leaving but a few thousands of us. The groups that remained tended to kill their alfa males and work together. You can see that our monkey cousins still have this macho mentality which is keeping them from evolving.
To my way of thinking, not quoted from any book, Peter offers the natural solution for self preservation. That is work together as one instead of killing each other. So why not go along with it? Why not spread the word? Like he said.. awareness. If some people starts propaganda on thinking for yourself i can see no problem with that. If he wants me not to fight with others over a piece of land or some gold or oil and share that with the world, and is doing this using manipulation, well manipulate me anytime!
Any person that sees some movie or reads some book and immediately starts disecting it and cataloging it and spitting out all sorts of isms at it, is just not playing with a full deck. It is the message that counts.
I’ve seen a lot of these pseudo intellectuals that in real life are no more then worthless critics, (as if i can’t judge for myself what is good and what is not) influencing weak people with their worthless opinions.
Another 2 things and I leave you alone.
The easiest thing one can do is defend the status quo. But there is no status quo. The world around us changes and we fail to acknowledge this. Why not change it so something better?
And about the whole sionist crap that’s out there. Sionists are not well regarded by the jewish community. I can quote at least a dozen books written by jews where the’re mocked for their greed. In Europe, jews blame the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds and greed for what happened in WW2 more then the nazi movement and stupid mislead people
December 15th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Anybody thought about “zeitgeistism”?????
Movies, Movements, Websites, books.This must be a very popular (and profitable) business.
The best way to start a new cult…..or something!
December 29th, 2009 at 1:48 am
The original link to the NiceneTruth website forwards to OrthodoxInfo.com but gives an error when you attempt to open it. I can’t find the original article even on OrthodoxInfo.com Does it exist anymore? Here is the error it gives when trying to open it
:
Server Error in ‘/’ Application.
Parser Error
Description: An error occurred during the parsing of a resource required to service this request. Please review the following specific parse error details and modify your source file appropriately.
Parser Error Message: The ‘CodeFile’ attribute is not supported by the ‘page’ directive.
Source Error:
Line 1:
Line 2:
Line 3:
Line 4:
Source File: d:\hosting\paddydev\error.aspx Line: 2
December 29th, 2009 at 2:19 am
Ya, you’re right. Jay has taken a break from web writing for a while. He announced it a few months back without any warning. I haven’t heard from him personally so I can’t speak to how it is or will play out. I am pretty sure that he tried to do a server-wide redirect and botched it somehow.
The original article is not in the Wayback machine yet, but you can still read the whole thing at various sites or forums - here’s one.
It’s funny. This particular article get’s a lot of traffic from google searches on either peter joseph or peter joseph and zeitgeist. Mainly because of the title of the post, I think. Can I ask a question? How did you find the article? Was it something you searched for? “Peter Joseph”, perhaps?
January 15th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
folks..
Wow, I congratulate the people who grasped the ideal of what Peter Joseph is actually talking about. And the others who have slated it, tut tut.
You can come on these sites and pretend to be an intellectual, then fail in the 1st hurdle. For one thing, Peter Joseph is only acting as an activist for the Venus Project, and Jacque Fresco has stated on numerous occasions that its not a perfect world they are looking to merge into, but a better one..
They spout nothing that resembles Marxism,Fascism,communism or capitalism.
As these systems still use the monetary system.. duh…
And to the person that post about why the papacy was left out the films.. why the heck would they include it.. get a grip..
I take it thats the only subject you were strong in, and thought, i can link this in… wake up..
Sorry for being strong worded, but its like it washed over you, The zeitgeist is trying to inform the public of whats actually going on and has been for years.
Nobody likes change, but these are usually the people who don’t understand.
January 15th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Sorry forgot to say…
I bet Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco are grateful for the free publicity…
January 18th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
This is all irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if Peter Joseph is Marxist or not. Or what he, or anyone is really. The point is, it is time to move on. There is no reason humans should continue separate themselves from one another. And as long as we use money, or any system that can’t be provide to everyone, people will ALWAYS continue to try and hijack it for their own self interests.
Do not focus on the messengers, focus on their message.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:03 am
So many people in here talking out there ass with huge gaps in logic etc.
One thing is that Alex Jones and Peter Joseph (Creator of Zeitgeist) DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER!
Alex J. believes in a indoctrinated religion, the notion of ‘evil’, he believes that there will always be weapons and war and that death is necessary to combat evil. Peter Joseph doesn’t. There are many other difference between the two, but the point is that the many sheeple out there gravitate towards grouping all of these people together and labeling them nut jobs because they say the same thing the News does. We have become subservient to the all knowing news which is under the control of the government and corporations or simply the elite. Sheeple toss these great teachers into the framework of their minds right next to socially-unacceptable and crazy. These guys don’t even talk about Aliens and crap like that, these people are trying to uncover the truth and are starting movements that most are too dumb and scared to even notice.
It’s so frustrating how mindless the populace is. They are more concerned about the new iphone than they are about 100 million people being unemployed in their own country.
February 7th, 2010 at 8:05 am
Yeah, lets attack the messenger!!!
March 8th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Peter Joseph does some great investigative journalism but his vision for the future is not so inspiring.
How could we all be genetically the same. I was born, taught and ate all the same things as my brother and we are entirely different.
The key is to buy less because the “evil people” run the money supply. Barter is key. Weapons wont win any fights. We will be fighting like the Polish against the Nazis. We know what we have to do - it aint violent.
March 9th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Peter Joseph is a joke. His so-called “sources” aren’t sources at all. He’s a compiler of pseudo-history and a propagandist.
March 16th, 2010 at 3:48 am
I thought this sounded like another lunatic slinging some more heresy. Another one of Satins solders trying to mislead the frightened.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
The first movie, Zeitgeist, is much better than its Addendum. The first part of the first movie is more a matter of opinions. The second part documents actual facts about 9/11. The third part gives a brief overview about the Federal Reserve. If I had to recommend the first movie, I would recommend only the second and third part.
My only criticism about the first movie is the narration put a lot of emphasis on loaning money at interest, implicitly suggesting collecting interests is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with charging interest on a loan; the problem is the creation of fiat money. Charging interests on money created out of thin air simply adds insult to the injury. I like how Mr. Griffin defines usury: any interest on any loan of fiat money (The Creature from Jekyll Island audio @ 71 minutes).
The root of the problem is creating money out nothing. Therefore, we can call the FED an institution loaning counterfeit money.
By the way, people advocating Social Credit do not mind borrowing counterfeited money. Those people want to receive money (through a loan) without paying any interests, therefore stealing from the savers through inflation. Social Crediters love legal plunder; they just tailored plunder to fit their lifestyles. Since most of Social Crediters are in debt and wish to consume more, they come up with a new scheme of borrowing without limit. The problem is they are borrowing fiat money, thus diluting the purchasing power of savings and taxing others through inflation. Also, without interest, they wish to pay the loan back in with a debased currency.
Now, my review about Zeitgeist: Addendum at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912. I will do my best to give the fact and point the fallacy where I found one.
@22 minutes: The movie praises the Greenbacks as interest-free money. Although this may be correct, it is still plunder. Government creating money out of this air is no different than what the FED is doing today. When government creates money, the politicians are plundering the population, when the central bank creates money, it is the bankers plundering the population. From the citizen’s point of view, there is no difference. In my opinion, I would rather have the FED creating money, because politicians are on a 4-year election cycle. Politicians are very short sighted, and likely to print excessive money to get re-elected, thus destroying the whole economy. The FED also wants to maximize plunder, however they know they will be getting more by plundering a small percentage on a large successful economy, than by trying to get the lion’s share of the economy. The plunder strategy of the central bank is maintaining a constant target for inflation.
@25 minutes: The movie praises the dictators as leaders for “their people”. Those ruthless tyrants are nothing less than criminals. By the way, if the US Government was unable to bribe those leaders, it is because those leaders owned the resources. Remember a bribe must always be lower than its market value, otherwise offering a bribe offers no benefits. For instance, you cannot bribe the owner of a store because he will prefer to sell his assets. You can only bribe a politician or a bureaucrat because he does not really own the resource, and therefore he can make an extra accepting the bribe. In the case of the dictators, they practically own the country, therefore receiving a bribe in exchange of the resources gives little value. The movie attempt to make heroes of those tyrants refusing accepting bribes.
Later, the movie talk about how rich countries loan money to poor countries to keep them in debt, and those debts forces the country to give away its resources. Public debt is non-binding. It should simply be ignored. Those who invested in government plunder should suffer the losses, not the innocent citizens.
@40 minutes: This part talks about the bad things of globalization, forgetting that globalization is an extension of the division of labor. The movie assumes the country is one entity, like an individual. A country is a group of individuals living in a geographical area, however individuals may have different opinion. This collectivism approach claiming that a “country decides” about such or such is an incorrect logic.
@43 minutes: Environmental destruction. The narrator forgot to mention the environmental destruction always occurs on “public property”. Private property is the best mechanism to protect the environment, because polluting your property will destroy its value.
@46 minutes: The narrator mentions that competition is a bad thing. The idea behind communism was protecting the workers against competition. Competition is freedom. It is also the endeavor towards excellence.
@47 minutes: “We no longer live in a world of Nations and Ideologies”. Nation Building and Ideologies is socialism. I am advocating individualism, not Nations.
@48 minutes: Inequality. Well, inequality and justice are opposite. It is unfair to have everyone equal, as some individuals work more and produce more. A doctor should earn more than a welfare recipient.
@53 minutes: The movie put emphasis on undemocratic corporations, as if democracy is a goal in itself. The free market is the best way for people to vote their wishes – with their wallet. Businesses take your money only with your consent, and give you something valuable in exchange. On the other hand politicians take your money by force.
@56 minutes: The movie mentions the problem of self-preservation. The tenet of communism is to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of the community. A man who is acting in his own self-interest neither makes sacrifices nor demands that other sacrifice for him. The opposite of self-interest is sacrifice which is always wrong because it’s destructive of human life (The virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 1 – The Objectivist Ethics, by Ayn Rand). Altruism makes hypocrisy necessary in order to live. (The Market For Liberty @ page 9-14, Tannehill).
A business in a free market economy must offer something of value to consumers in order to survive. Government self-preservation is only by coercion and plunder. There a big difference! The problem is not about self-preservation, buy how self-preservation is achieved.
@59 minutes: Industries do not care for our people because they are outsourcing jobs [to pour countries]. This is called collectivism. There is no such thing as “our people” or “our jobs”. People don’t belong to someone else. And jobs don’t belong to a group of people. Individuals have the right to contract to whatever wish. The statement of outsourcing is also contradictory, because it means that industries care about the poorest. After all, the industries outsourcing jobs are creating jobs in third world countries. For those who are really concerned with third world poverty, they should cheer outsourcing.
@1h: The movie says competition leads to corruption. This is completely false. Competition is freedom to produce and trade without coercion. Corruption ONLY occurs within the framework of government, where corporations seek special privileges from the government, such as subsidies and/or regulations to harm their competitors. If government was non-existent, there would be NO corruption. Of course, corporations competing for government handouts always lead to corruption.
The movie says competition leads to a government dictatorship. Dictatorship is just the opposite of competition, because the dictator imposes his will on the population. This movie is full of contradictions.
@1h 2 minutes: The movie says profits are the motive for downsizing corporation. This is my favorite. If downsizing makes a corporation more profitable, then upsizing (hiring more employees) should make the corporation less profitable. Why do you think corporation hire people? To reduce their profits, or to increase their profits? To my best knowledge, a corporation cannot have a negative number of employees, meaning that every employee being laid off during downsizing was once hired to increase profits. The reason corporations downsize is because of external changes, such as market conditions or the excessive costs of employment benefits.
@1h 2 minutes: The movie claims the world’s problems are because we have a selfish mentality. I can see this coming… and the solution is of course, eliminate your selfish behavior and serve the community. Wait, this is exactly communism, just under a different name. The collectivism ideology is the rights of the individual are not important; what is important is the goal of the community… of course controlled by the elite… and at gunpoint. The elite running the community is not selfish… they just live in castles and are among the wealthiest people on earth by stealing from the population.
@1h 5 minutes: The movie claims it is technology that solves problems… I thought technology and automation are synonymous. Was automation unethical just 6 minutes ago? Technology plays a great role to solve problems, and technology comes from R&D which requires genuine capital. No socialist country ever developed any useful technology. Every piece of technology you love you owe to capitalism.
@1h 7 minutes: technology frees humans from chores. This is called automation, which was bashed 8 minutes ago. By the way, technology requires specialization, and specialization is what we called division of labor. For division of labor to function effectively, there is a need of a medium of exchange: money.
@1h 9 minutes: The movie claims that profits make electronic equipment obsolete in 3 months. Well, if electronic equipment is obsolete in 3 months, it means technology has improved so much during the 3 month period, that it is more cost-effective to buy a new one than keeping the old one at no cost. Notice the word “obsolete” was used. This is a big difference from something “obsolete” and something “broken”. I would have far more respect for this movie if the movie said “things are broken after 3 months” to increase profits.
@1h 9 minutes: The movie claims that scarcity increases profits. This is true according the law of supply and demand. However, there is always competition offset scarcity. Competing businesses want to maximize their profits, thus having an incentive to produce more. This is rather strange, considering other socialist literature blame overproduction and dumping as a mean to increase profits. Socialists are self-contradictory. A socialist will prefer to sacrifice reason and logic to pursue a flawed ideology – to blame the free market (read Mises). This reminds me the following from the book entitled “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” at page 144 written by Schumpeter:
Two seemingly contradictory charges are now rife: (a) that capitalism is not “growing” fast enough, and (b) that the trouble with capitalism is that it makes us too “affluent.” Excess wealth has suddenly replaced poverty as the tragic flaw of capitalism.
@1h 12 minutes: The movie claims there is no “human nature”. Well, perhaps the producer should listen and/or read to Rothbard’s great book “The Ethics of Liberty”, Chapter 2 named “Natural Law and as Science”.
@1h 12 minutes: The movie claims we need to a re-design of our society and values. This is scary. Such social engineering the slogan behind the bloody communism. Who decides what society should be and, what values we must adopt?
@1h 14 minutes: The movie claims we need money because we assume scarcity. Well, we live in a world of scarcity. This is reality. And as long as there will be scarcity, we will need money to allocate resources, because money is a measure of scarcity. By the way, communism was also denying scarcity, and promising abundance to everyone. We all know communism created nothing less than mass misery.
@1h 14 minutes: The movie claims we can create a society with such abundance that we can consume without a price tag. The idea of consuming without producing anything is GREED. People usually want money to buy stuff. This is why people work hard to earn money, not for the money itself, but to exchange their money for goods and services. Greedy people want to spend their money, and bypassing money will not remove the desire of consuming without a price tag. Who do you think will join the Venus Project? Those who dream of living a big lifestyle without doing any work.
@1h 16 minutes: The movie claims the following: if there is a problem in society and cannot be solved with money, than it won’t be solved. This is true, and for a good reason. If nobody wants to spend money on this “problem”, it means there are more urgent problems to solve. For instance, the “problem” of sending a man on Mars may be a “real” problem to some, however if there is not enough funds for making it happen, it means the “problem” is not that severe. People spend their money to satisfy their most urgent needs.
@1h 16 minutes: The movie claims it can create abundance. That was also the slogan for communism. In theory, communism would create a classless society of abundance and freedom, in which all people enjoy equal social and economic status.
According to Leon Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, trans. by R. Strunsky (London, 1925), p. 256:
In the socialist society “the average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.”
The socialist paradise will be the kingdom of perfection, populated by completely happy supermen. All socialist literature is full of such nonsense. But it is just this nonsense that wins it the most supporters.
@1h 28 minutes: Crime and poverty. Criminality is proportional to the size of government. First, the government creates poverty by confiscating resources from the working man and spend it (read waste it) towards politically elected elite. For the common man, the role of the government is to redistribute wealth, making everyone equal. When a citizens sees himself poorer than the others, then he concludes he has not has not received enough of his share of the loot, thus making justice for himself by stealing. To help alleviate poverty, we need a sound monetary system, eliminating taxes, and removing government regulations and red tape.
@1h 31 minutes: The movie claims war is a result of scarcity. This is false. War is profitable only with the help of government which is backed by the taxpayers. A war would never be profitable on free market because the cost of paying the war along with the losses caused by destruction would outweigh the value of the remaining loot.
@1h 32 minutes: The movie praises the idea of working on a common good for mankind. That sounds like communism. By the way, what is a “common good”? Who decides? And if one thinks differently, what type of punishment will he receives? If history repeats itself, such punishment is likely to be prison, torture and death.
@1h 46 minutes: The movie says “It is time to claim our Unity and create a society where everyone is taken care of”. Sounds like the communist motto “for each according to his needs”. Uniting people based on an ideology is a bad idea. The reality is we are united because of we need each other to enhance the quality of our lives. Nobody is an island, and specialization makes it worth trading with others. Also, what happens to those who do not share the Unity ideology? Perhaps the same fate as those who opposes communism…
@1h 56 minutes: The movie suggests declaring all natural resources are common heritage for the people. Sounds like plunder to me. What about the respect of private property? Oh, wait, there is no such thing under a collectivist environment.
The Venus Utopia will never exist. First, the Venus Project will require billions of dollars just for its construction. This is probably why the movie producer blames money as the problem for scarcity… however it is because of scarcity we have money, so we can allocate resources rationally. Also, the Venus Project also attract the laziest people eager to live in abundance without working Greedy individuals, crippled with debt, will find it convenient to join the Utopia to consume without restrictions and engage in reckless spending. Who will then do the work and/or pay the actual bills?
There is no way such “Resource Based Economy” can function without the backing of taxpayers!
I realize my movie review is quite a long. For the reasons above, I would NOT recommend Zeitgeist Addendum at all. Perhaps the Zeitgeist producers have good intentions, however good intentions don’t cut it. A friendly form of communism is an oxymoron.
Nobody is an island, and we all need each other. With specialization, we can all increase our well-being by trading with others. Money is the medium enabling such specialization. Money is the essence of civilization. Abolishing money is returning back to the stone age.
May 23rd, 2010 at 8:05 pm
His ideas of a different future then the doomsday track we are on is a good start. when you state “marxist” any capitalist or whoever thats listening and not prepared to open their mind will automatically be turned off to his ideas. Resources here are finite and his ideal of a recource based economy will cancel out the unneeded jobs and waste on this planet. But first things first, we need to take down the central banking system, build infrastructure in the third world, and figure out what this place we know of as earth is gonna look like when were gone. After that you can point as many fingers as you want.
May 31st, 2010 at 10:03 am
Yeah, and some accused Christ’s teachings as communistic. I think it sounds more like libertarianism and Christianity, although he doesn’t see it that way, but it’s not that either. Perhaps it’s takes the best of them all and leaves the rest adding the realities of the times. We will forever be evolving any system to fit the times. This is going to be just what he said it will be, the biggest, worldwide organization in history. It’s too real.
Actually there are deep foundations for what he says. It is too bad that he doesn’t know how to be a populist, like Alek Jones. It’s just what you say, a start. It’s up to us all to make it what it should be. With information doubling every few months or so, the world is changing fast. We have to change faster. Sorry, no more easy chair.
June 10th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Im sorry to say this guys but if you found The Venus Project like Communism or Marxism that means that you were not a good student in your class. There is nothing in common between the two first of all and yes Communism was a scam not because it was not a good system but because those that applied it were dictators. Do a little more research when critisising something that can actually improve and sustain life on earth…
July 2nd, 2010 at 4:04 am
The only label Zeitgeist and The Venus Project should get is resource based economy. It has nothing to do with money, dictatorship or trading. It’s a new way of thinking we’ve never tried and Alex Jones has nothing to do with it. Alex Jones flipped out at Peter, they only use good points the guy has in the movie, trying to not be biased and say someones stupid or their opinion is worthless. The movie gives a broad view of multiple opinions and facts. Zeitgeist just explains the problems, Addendum actually comes up with a plausible solution. I wish people would actually find out what something is about before judging it bad or good, genius or crazy. Labels say nothing, find out all that something entails before judging it. Do your own research and find out the sources. Do these people writing good or bad things about it do it for notoriety? Money? Have they done research? Don’t take peoples word for it, find out yourself and make your own decisions.
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Actually, reading through these comments, I can see that a lot of people here are working from preconceived notions and cognitive biases. Based on the second film only, and having no relationship to the first, a movement has been formed by Peter Joseph and several people who liked what he had to say.
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.
September 30th, 2010 at 12:42 am
While i would hope that Joseph’s plan was practical, he tries to avoid directly challenging the power structures that control the system he dislikes.
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
December 9th, 2010 at 5:38 am
Rank and Orders has majorly been the way all creature has been living up till now.
The human nature gets motivated with dreams to achieve what he ‘currently cannot’ achieve, have what he ‘currently doesn’t’ have.
Greed and Fear are common nature, no education, political system can eliminate these from human nature.
Corruption is not associated with a political system, it is associated with Human nature… and of course, the human mind is vast.
The concept of resource based economy is admirable, however, when you say you become stewards for future generations, then you are missing it.
1000 years ago, no one thought of the modern age computer
2000 years ago, no one thought of a pistol.
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
January 21st, 2011 at 1:37 pm
yes, I think we will have to put utopia on hold for a while. greedy moneymakers&gray eminences are not the only bad guys, unfortunately there*s us too. I believe that every man is able to become aware and responsible (at least in theory), but how do you raise 7 billion people (or 1 or 2) to become complete an responsible individuals? only few rotten apples are enough. but what I do believe in is nature and universe (or God), if something doesn*t hold the water, it will be ruined, so the status quo won*t last forever-things tend to even themselves out
February 8th, 2011 at 6:04 am
“What was that crazy, hyper patriotic sounding, rant???
He is kind of annoying.”
- 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.
February 21st, 2011 at 2:56 pm
. . .Marxism meets Greenpeace meets L. Ron Hubbard. . .
April 22nd, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Does it matter if the ideas of Peter Joseph and the people of venus project sound like the ideas of Marxism or communism? These new and ground breaking ideas offer the best in human relations and improving our quality of life. Now i’m not a religious person but I remember Jesus say that “thy should will done on earth it is in heaven.” Now i don’t know abt you but i’m pretty should sure the social structure does not exist in heaven, that’s if there is a heaven. But anyway, it is all up to us young people to create a future that comes close to the ideas of the venus project.
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Matter? No. Have at it. Go forth and build ye an Utopia. The world awaits with bated breath.
Just do it already, smart asses. I’m tired of hearing about it.
May 11th, 2011 at 3:24 am
Kieran Zero, what world are you from? Look the economic crises we are going through and the destruction of the enviorment. It´s a crise from the system that we live. This movie shows how human life has no value when we talk about international banks and their interests. They made US a slave, we cant pay trillions of dollars in debts. We can´t continue to fabricate wars to movement the economy.
May 31st, 2011 at 2:35 am
As a previous proponent of Zeitgeist, I only have one thing to say.
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.
May 31st, 2011 at 5:02 pm
I agree with Russ, and as Lord Acton rightly said, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. One leader could start his career with the highest of morals, but once he reaches a position of power he finds himself betraying his principals for that same inherit tendency that Russ mention.
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.