|2011-01-26, 21:11||Link #1|
Witch of Betrayal
Join Date: Jan 2006
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward reviews
So it's finally out! Well, the release only came one day late, but I expected it to be 11 days ago.
it's 2h40m, so set some time aside and grab your popcorn. It's available just on dvd quality, so you might as well watch it on youtube instead of looking for torrents and such.
Before you and I go posting anything, let me say this:
Annoyingly, the last ZG topic got locked before this film was even available for viewing. I'm not a member of the Zeitgeist movement, just a fan of the excellent quality films it produces...and I was quite looking forward to seeing the AS crowd thoughts on this. I think the ZG topics until now have been great reading with lots of different, mostly really critical posters.
However the fervor with which people posted their arguements created an atmosphere that'll lead to lead to general bitterness and eventually flame wars. The mods don't appreciate that. So, I'd like this thread to be focused on reviewing the film. If you feel the need to correct others or extend a discussion to Zeitgeist as a whole, be nice about it or rather take it to PMs, please. I'd like most people to have a word before this topic gets locked as well.
The old Venus Project thread in all its flaming glory
The last thread for this film that got a bit heated and locked
Press conference after the release of this film with the minds behind it all
Now for my review.
Part one deals with human nature. It's the part that I liked the most, probably because I agree with it the most. The ZG views on this subject are scientifically sound, and this part presents well what is also my own reasoning for supporting enviromentalism. As in caring for the environment not only to protect the vitality of nature, but also that of ourselves.
However for this subject, there are more detailed works. I can recommend this documentary. It's more in-depth and not in the framework of any agenda like ZG.
Part two is criticism on the current monetary system. If you've seen the last ZG film, then you have seen this before and could pretty much skip this part. The difference would be that this time the judgement is even harsher. But still, I have to painstakingly agree to these things.
Part three is actually the second half of the film, and I actually don't like it that much. It goes far overhead with the Venus Project visions of the future. The nature of the film kinda suddenly changes, from being scientific to being science fiction. From rational to stroking the viewer's heartstrings.
We're supposed to arrive to the Resource-Based Economy vision based on the criticisms presented in parts one and two, but the logic of "Money isn't working out for us, so this is how we must do things" just doesn't hold. Also, the vision itself is crude and really lacking in integrity. It can still be interpreted as just a central planned economy, except the issue of leadership is evaded. Instead there's this overwhelming trust for science to take care of things, and blind trust for the rationality, empathy and capabilities of humanity.
There's clearly a conflict here between presenting things solidly like a documentary, and creating a good film. Towards the end, it heavily slides to the latter side. It's altogether audiovisually stimulating, and the ending is like something out of a hollywood drama...almost made me cry. And the effort done to produce and spread this work for literally no gain is admirable. The idea of a balanced, open, and evolving society without the incentive of profit or violence-based governance is beautiful and worth striving for.
Still, I'm also disappointed it wasn't made more like a documentary, and that there isn't any other proper Zeitgeist works like that. With the Opus Magnum of the movement being just a 180 minute film, it's no wonder people call it the Zeitgeist cult and get generally turned off by the science-fiction stuff. We're left to do a lot of thinking and research ourselves, which I encourage everyone to do...a film or two isn't enough to form a world view.
|2011-01-27, 13:52||Link #2|
blinded by blood
I watched it, because I can't stand it when people claim I'm Complaining About Shows I Don't Watch...
I agree with you pretty much in that it was more like a film and less like a documentary. I still don't agree with their ideology, I still think it's ridiculous, impossible and damned scary, but on the merits of the documentary itself?
It was pretty hard to take seriously. Especially the latter parts, concerning the Venus Project, looked pulled right out of Star Trek: The Next Generation. It's too great a leap, especially since the Venus Project keeps talking, and talking, talking, talking...
... and taking money...
... but they've apparently forgotten that they're supposed to be, you know, constructing a test city.
So yeah. I may disagree with the ideology behind it all, but more than anything I'm annoyed that they seem to be a lot of talk (especially with these films) but not a lot of action or realism. The plan to spread ideas through the medium of film and documentary is not a new one; it's been done by plenty of people plenty of times and it does work.
But I think they should have grounded this one a little more firmly in reality to get the maximum effect.
|2011-01-28, 02:45||Link #5|
Join Date: May 2009
You all knew this was comming.
I watched it all the way through.
The monopoly story about his grandma was a nice touch but the conclusion shows his complete lack of understanding of money.
Money is not an asset, money is the vehicle to acquire assets to improve the freedom of one's existence.
Peter fails to describe the types of money systems (there are many) and gives an overly simplistic child's tale as if the intended audience are a bunch puerile simpletons too stupid to understand that the Parker Bros. board game is nothing like the reality of the world.
He asks "What matters" in the world?
His answer was money, but that's not accurate.
What matters in the world is power, money is simply a vehicle to acheive power.
Whether that power is over one's own life or over the lives of others is immaterial when speaking of economics.
Again Joseph exposes his ignorance of reality.
Then we get to Fresco.
Ah, I can see Alzheimer's must have set in long ago because this old fart is definitely demented.
First he bashes the United States with a quote right out of the propaganda film "the Story of Stuff" by saying the United States has essentially plundered the world.
Believe me, if we had plundered the Earth you'd all be paying taxes to us and we'd not be in the economic crisis we're in.
Instead we're begging China for a loan.
Then this fuzzy brained idiot goes on to completely omit the actual reasons for WWII [you know the rise of Nationalist Socialism, Communism, and other looney totalitarian regimes invading countries...like I don't know...Poland for example?].
Fresco completely ignored the ideological reasons for both WWI and WWII and I can guess why.
Jacques is clearly a socialist.
His disdain for the capitalist system is crystal clear, and he exposed that when he bashed the Free Market economy and called it materialism.
That also shows a complete ignorance of economic theory.
Materialism is joined at the hip with CORPORATISM, which I have already said before IS NOT Capitalism.
Corporatism is what the Fabian socialists [an a short Italian guy with a really BIG ego] call the "Third Way."
Although I do agree with Fresco on one point, "This shit [Zeitgeist], has got to stop."
Since Peter Joseph doesn't believe in "credencialism" I'll use his standards to critique the three scientists he chose to use for Part I.
Oh where to begin?
As soon as I saw their names it became clear to me where this movie was going.
Doctor Robert Sapolsky is a card carrying atheist, and member of what is called "The Third Culture" based on the book by self-described Marxist John Brockman.
This movement's members consist of a "who's-who" of atheist, socialist, and Marxian-socialist scientists from around the world.
Thus it's no surprise that Peter Joseph would add him to the film.
I don't trust anything a Marxist says, nor anyone willingly associated with their movements.
Doctor Mengele was a brilliant physician, and also a madman.
Having a PHD doesn't stop you from being human.
Expert number two:
Doctor Gabor Mate.
Interesting fellow this one.
I agree with him in part, and of the three scientists presented, he is the most credible.
I found no links to communism, socialism (though he is Canadian ), or other socialistic ideologies.
Though, I do not agree with his overall hypothesis.
Psychopaths, Schizophrenics, and other antisocial disorder sufferers can grow up in a loving, caring, environment and still commit horrendous crimes.
Jeffery Dahmer being a prime example of this.
Theirs is a product of genetic defect.
Expert number three:
Doctor James Gilligan.
Yep, his last name says it all.
Well little buddy, this is why I don't have any respect for you or your PHD:
It's been polticized to the point of becomming a secular-religion.
While I agree that the current forms of punishment for violent offenders is not working, I completely disagree with his conclusions.
We don't need "kindler, gentler" punishments for murders, rapists, and childmolesters.
We only need one punishment, the one the ancients used for these types of social deviants and that's death.
It's cheap, effectively ends any chance of repeat offense, and solves the problem eternally.
I don't need this reject from Gilligan's Island trying to rewrite human history because he's trying to make a new scientific "break through" at the expense of the penal system.
That this twit is in the Zeitgeist movie only helps solidify my opinion of this Utopian Socialist cult.
Doctor John (I'm a crackpot anti-Capitalism, Marxian Socialist-Pig) McMurtry.
I've actually read his book The Cancer Stage of Capitalism and there is no doubt he's a Marxist...none.
Did I mention he's also a "Truther?"
That said, let me dismiss the credibility of this idiot professor with one swift blow.
John Locke DID NOT invent the concept of private property.
That is a flat out lie, and anyone who claims to be an expert in economics knows this.
Even the Marxists know this Johnny boy, it was the GREEKS that started what we now know as private property.
With that simple exposure of this man's bias and propensity to fabricate history for his own purposes I can safely and confidently write him off as a complete hack.
Nevertheless, Peter Joseph adds insult to injury and throws in his own asshattery when he takes a shot at Adam Smith.
Let's not trouble him with the fact that Laissez-faire capitalism IS NOT mercantilism/corporatism and that Adam Smith actually said this about corporations in his work The Wealth of Nations.
But facts rarely stand in the way of a good socialist yarn, especially a Utopian one.
Then move on to the erroneous "Employer, Employee, and Consumer" wheel that Peter thinks makes sense.
He's making one huge mistake.
In our system there are TWO additional players in all transactions involving economics: the Banks, and the Government.
The Banks through loaning money for payroll, credit, and acquisitions, and the government for regulations, taxes, and wage-fixing.
The system he's describing with his wheel graph is one of unregulated, Laissez-Faire, economics, but he's saying that's what we live under when in fact WE DO NOT.
In short, he's lying, or he's stupid.
Not sure which.
I also find it interesting how in the first film there were enough resources for everybody, but in Part II of this film there is a finite amount of resources.
Which is it Peter?
Then he moves into the concept of "Planned Obsolescence."
That's a coporatist ideal, which was pushed by the Money Power/Round Table Groups to generate the capital needed to erect the New International Economic Order started in 1931 after the demise of financial-"capitalism"/late-mercantilism and the move into monopolistic-"capitalsim"/corporatism.
This system was ushered into by the international banking interests as fully explained in Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope.
Maybe you Zeitgeisters should pool some cash together and send Peter a copy of both that book and The Anglo American Establishment because he clearly doesn't understand what's going on in the world today.
If he did, I imagine his films would be quite different, and a helluva lot more accurate.
Then we see the young student asking Milton Friedman about the death of an old man from the inability to pay his electric bill.
First off, we cannot substantiate that this student's story is even true.
Peter then attacks all of the Liberal economists, yet doesn't touch Marx, Engles, Lennin, Stalin, Benito, or any Socialist thinker.
I can tell you for certain that Wall Street hates Hayek, and VonMises (the so called "Austrian" Economists) as much as they despise the Marian Socialists.
Thus again we see the now all too familiar pattern of Peter Joseph and his Zeitgeist movement.
He is bashing the Liberal economists, lumping them in with the corporatists, and claiming that they are "evil" and "responsible" for all the world's woes.
However, I don't see any mention of the Holdomor Massacre.
Or the Holocaust caused by the Nationalist Socialists.
Or the millions murdered by Mao's China, or the countless others murdered under Socialist regimes.
Where's the outcry about that?
Where's the critique of socialism.
Peter Joseph is either a complete ignoramous about history (which I highly doubt) or is intentionally editing history to focus on his enemy--Capitalism.
He's a Utopian Socialist-pig and too much of a coward to come right out and say it.
Now we get to Max Keiser.
An Austrian economist!
Wait a second.
Peter just told us that VonMises and VonHayek were evil????
Now he's using Mr. Keiser as an expert?
Here is Keiser bashing the Money Power and their international coporatist scheming on his own website:
Maybe Peter should have vetted Max a bit before he added him to his "visionary" movie.
The contradictions compound themselves throughout this film.
With that we move on to "structural classism."
Again, this is what the Money Power intentionally built into the system they started under mercantilism back in the 1500s and erected the world over through coporatism, not capitalism.
You see, under capitalism a business is like it's owner.
It is born, it lives, and it dies.
In coporatism a corporation is created by government (it is a creature of the state), it lives off of credit (from both government loans, and private banks), and is immortal (like a vampire, it sucks the life blood of the proletariat and bourgeoise to feed it's Aristocratic hunger for power).
If Peter could shed his Utopian Socialistic idealism he might actually discover the truth, but then he'd get hung out to dry by the corporate media.
Then we get to the "True Economy" that is the so called "dictatorship of nature."
What Peter leaves out of this is that violence IS natural.
A lion doesn't care about the gazelle whose throat he's just tore out, nor does the alligator care about the crane he's just devoured.
An asteroid doesn't give one hoot about the all the life it extinguishes on a planet when it impacts, and a Black Hole doesn't wince when it devours a whole star system.
What Jacques and Peter completely ignore is the fact that we humans are different than nature because we have the ability to manipulate it, change it, and conquer it.
We are not held hostage to it the way Peter tries to claim in the last hour of the this movie.
He's simply pushing the already disproven theory of Henri de Rouvroy who believed in these same kinds of naturalistic theories in which science would become the religion and governing law of man.
That simply will not happen.
It's been tried before, and failed.
I won't comment on the last 41 minutes of this film.
synaesthetic is correct when he/she says it is pure science fiction right out of Star Trek.
It's a nice dream, but that's all it will ever be.
As for my opinion of the entire work.
It's a steaming pile of Utopian Socialistic propaganda that should be archived for future referrence so that we know what the warning signs look like for these groups.
Zeitgeist is dangerous, and this movie is concrete proof of it.
For that I thank Peter Joseph and Jacques Frescos as it is always good "to know thy enemy as thyself."
Last edited by GundamFan0083; 2011-01-28 at 02:56.
|2011-01-28, 19:52||Link #7|
Kurumada's lost child
Join Date: Nov 2003
WOW! it has only been two days and the movie already has over 800k views and 16k comments
I won't be making the same mistake I have been making in my previous threads; which is to respond to quotes by other posters on the subject who clearly have no intension whatsoever to open their minds to a new concept. Rather than fall into this trap and making the thread go around in circles like a dog chasing its own tail I will just expose my review of the movie and address the most common questions on the subject.
I really love this movie. I think it did a masterful job at conveying a message in an easy to understand way in order to be watchable by people with low educational background. As always, Peter Joseph made sure to present factual information instead of making stuff up. The animations and the humor were great and they help to lighten the mood of what otherwise would be a very somber and gloomy movie.
This movie started wisely with the most crucial part of the whole project, which is to demonstrate that humans are a reflexion of their environment. Jaden posted an excellent documentary that demonstrates this notion further. I have done the same in previous threads but I would like to add another video this time with Jack Fresco himself, whom many consider to be "The Da Vinci of our time", this guy is versed not only in many schools of science but also in philosophy and psychology as well.
I suggest you turn on the subtitles for this video because he is a little hard to hear.
This is the bedrock of movement itself; acknowledging that we are product of our environment and thus, a change to the system will change us as well.
This was well done and dumbed down enough in order for many people to understand the problems of the monetary system. They did a good job, but I don't think it was good enough to convince people that money itself is the problem. There needs to be another movie that explains this subject specifically.
I would like to expand on this subject myself, as it is important to establish three important aspects of the current system:
1: Money creates social stratification. This is the most crucial problem when it comes to money. Money automatically implies that having more of it will give you a better quality of life. Once an individual has more than enough money to satisfy his basic human needs money becomes an instrument of power that when hoarded in massive amounts can influence society itself.
Social stratification is the harbinger of suffering in this society, as it creates division among the population, which in turn generates lack of trust, which in turn leads to ignorance, which in turn leads to hatred and violence. This factor was masterfully explained in the movie and doing away with it should be the #1 priority of humanity.
2: Money, no matter the system it is being currently used on, such as american capitalism, communism or socialism, assumes that there are infinite resources which leads to mass production and in turn leads to source depletion.
3: Money is debt, and debt is slavery. There is no freedom in our current society, we are only free to choose our enslaver. Even the decisions we make every day are the product of media influence in one way or another.
I would like to explain the concept of debt much further in tree steps (Warning, these are very long but very important to correctly grasp the concept of money creation and circulation)
Please watch the following 47 min Google video before proceeding any further:
The mechanics of the monetary system:
3) The following formula attempts to explain the fractional reserve banking system process from the very beginning, but first let me quote what its author said:
This part of the movie explained the Venus Project, I think it was very well put together.
For those who question using science as a the governing rule of society please think carefully about this:
The scientific method has no ego (Peter said science has no ego, I am just trying to explain what he meant): Science is based on the observation, analysis and replication of natural phenomena. Nature has strict rules that must be followed in order to survive and live in a sustainable manner in this planet. (This is why Joseph said that nature is a dictatorship) The Venus project advocates applying the scientific method for social concern in order to live in accordance with the laws of nature. If we live this way our society won't be subjected to the opinions of individuals, such as politicians or dictators who know nothing about how our world works, and ultimately end up making subjective decisions that affects us all. A world in which the distribution of resources is guided by calculators (AKA computers) instead of power hungry people will lead to a more equal and just society, free of social stratification.
This part was about the imminent destruction of our world due to the current socio economic paradigm, such as peak oil, structural violence, and hindering of scientific development. I liked it but I found it lacking on a very important point, how to transition into the Venus Project in the first place? This continues to be the biggest problem that the movement faces. It needs a very clear transition strategy, apart from educating society on problems of our current system and how it will lead us straight to self destruction, there needs to be a very detailed plan on what to do once most of the population is aware of this system.
I don't think riots and mass protests world wide are not going to cut it, that would most likely cause society to devolve as the people in power are addicted to it and would rather die than to give it up. There needs to be a global census among people of all levels of society first.
PS: Here are 3 very interesting money related articles:
German Central Bank Admits that Credit is Created Out of Thin Air
Money Impedes Our Ability to Enjoy the Little Pleasures in Life
Dope, Dopes and Dopamine: The Problem With Money
Last edited by Sugetsu; 2011-01-28 at 21:56.
|2011-01-28, 22:26||Link #8|
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
I haven't had the time to watch it yet but i find many of the comments from proponents disturbing. I've read many criticisms about the film from some sectors but most of them arw being immediately rejected as preconceived conusions of closed mindedness despite the fact that they've been done with a very openminded analytical sense. If any and all negative criticism is handwaved then what's the point? Is praise the only valid reaction?
I want to watch the movie and discuss it, but if the only points that want to be discussed are the positives and not the negatives, and openmindedness equates to having to accept the entire production as some sort of gospel that is nothing but a gift to tje world, then no thanks. The entire point of discourse is to understand the text from every angle and not just to sing it praises like a collective hive mind.
|2011-01-28, 23:38||Link #9|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
From what I understand, the only way to transition to a radically different system from what we have now (includes all the various forms we have now) is basically to blow everything up and start over. That means one hell of a war with possibly as much as a sixth of the worlds population dying (either from the war or from the aftermath of the war)...then the survivors decide to try something different because all th goverments and institutions are basically broken afterwards (especially if say most monitary transactions are over computers and the war used some sort of massive EMP weapon that basically wipes out all the non-metal or printed money of the world...leaving the printed with no real value and the metal subject to whim.
I don't think most people want to have to go through that to gain Utopia. (I'll not that is exactly the pattern Star Trek uses...mass destruction followed by social changes....and advent of new science...and aliens..and it still takes 200-300 years to get to what has beem suggested.).
|2011-01-29, 00:27||Link #10|
Join Date: May 2009
I've uncovered some interesting tidbits about ol Peter Joseph.
There's a reason these people can't take criticism, and anonymous has something to say about it.
@MeoTwister5 and Ithekro, and anyone who has questions about this group.
I strongly recommend watching the Zeitgeist movie, then coming back here and watching the following three videos which are professional analysis of Zeitgeist.
Doctor Robert Jay Lifton's analysis of the Zeitgeist movement has proven to be a most valuable series of information videos especially when combined with watching the new Zeitgeist movie.
Here is Doctor Rober J Lifton's CRITERIA FOR THOUGHT REFORM:
THOUGHT REFORM: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TOTALISM CHAPTER 22 (Chapel Hill, 1989) THE FUTURE OF IMMORTALITY CHAPTER 15 (New York 1987)
Spoiler for It's long.:
Combine that with Sugetu's post and I'd say all of you will get a pretty clear picture of what Zeitgeist really is.
|2011-01-29, 01:14||Link #11|
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
You can actually sum it up with one sentence:
"You're either with us or against us. There is no such things as neutrality."
Social absolutism. I've seen a good number of communist propaganda films in college and it surprises me how much I'm to tolerate before my brain kicks in and actually start thinking.
|2011-01-29, 02:18||Link #12|
Kurumada's lost child
Join Date: Nov 2003
First let me state my position the movement very clearly: I consider that this is currently the best option there is to help humanity get out of the hole it currently finds itself into. It doesn't mean however that I constantly don't try to put the strength of its ideas to the test. I personally find that its biggest flaw is not having a clear transition plan. if we don't find one soon the movement is as good as gone.
How did I come to like it so much? Well, way back when I was a kid I was heavily influenced by Carl Sagan and a south american writer called Enrique Barrios. These men constantly talked about present, past, future and extraterrestrial civilizations and their social and cultural state. Hence, the idea that in order to change society for the better a change in the system is required was already implanted on me since early age.
I consider that a person must not hold beliefs of any kind, because beliefs are connected to the ego which in turn is attached to emotion. Emotion and logic are like oil and water. It is better to hold theories instead, because as we all know, nothing is absolute. It is all matter of perspective that correlates to one's current knowledge.
The latest post from Gundam is exactly why I said I wouldn't waste my time trying to argue with people who clearly do not want to consider any other options. How do I know whom I can establish a proper channel of communication with? Simple, if the person you are talking to is emotional in his responses you know that he is heavily vested in his view of the world and getting him to listen to a new message is out of question.
Gumdan for example has called this movement every name in the book, and in the previous thread he attempted to tie in the movement to the NWO and eugenics. He seems to be on a crusade to discredit the movement as well as constantly shift his position on the arguments he brings up. Take a look at his emotional review of the movie for example, saying thing such as:
His review of the movie shows that he wasn't listing to the message of the movie at all. For example, Fresco never said or implied that he hated any system including the present one, he stated clearly in the movie: "All systems have a life spam and are suitable for the culture of the determined time period, capitalism was good up the 1930s but it has become outdated due to the advancement of technology".
He has also deemed the movement dangerous; I honestly don't get what he means by it because he has never tried to explain his position except for trying to scare the hell of the reader. Maybe he thinks the movement is composed is zealots and its leaders are egocentric and their ethics and spiritual backgrounds are questionable.
Watch this short video, it is the most clear message I could find to express that this is not a dangerous movement:
I am still very much open to discussion, but I don't intend on going back to the cyclical arguments. We exchange ideas, we agree or disagree based on our own perceptions and then we move onto a different subject. There is just so much stuff out there to cover and I am itching for constructive criticism, because like I said before, I seek to test the strength the movements ideas. If I just wanted to convert people to my way of thinking I would have stopped long ago because these boards have a very large group of conservative members in them.
|2011-01-29, 03:09||Link #13|
Join Date: May 2009
Highly critical of, yes.
Get my position straight if you're going to criticize me.
I haven't deviated from it one iota.
He said they will deride critics of the cult by saying they "don't understand it."
I understand Zeitgeist very clearly, and there is no doubt it is a cult in the exact same manner as the Nazis were a cult.
When I use the term cult I don't mean a relgious movement Sugetsu.
I mean a movement that centers around a charismatic leader (or leaders) who are presented as all knowing or always correct and immune from critique or invasive analysis.
Peter, Jacque, and we've now learned Roxanne, are lying to their followers.
They're presenting themselves as being outside of the corporate money system when in fact they are very much a part of it.
They're more like the Moonies than I had first thought, financially speaking.
Any movement that advocates the abrogation of individual human rights for the collective "good" is also dangerous.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, didn't come to power by declaring they wanted to murder millions of people.
They came to power by proclaiming they were going to create a paradise on Earth for their peoples and that everyone would be equal.
Zeitgeist is spouting the same kinds of rhetoric, and that's a red flag for anyone who understands the dangers of these types of movements.
The solution to debt-slavery (as illustrated in Carroll Quigley's book, VonMises books, and VonHayek's books) is the elimination of Usery--i.e. the mercantilist/corporatist banking system.
We don't need Zeitgeist for that.
There have been people and groups yelling from the proverbial rooftops about this since Charles Lindbergh Senior (a Progressive politician) wrote Banking Currency and the Money Trust long before even Fresco was born.
What we need is a return to specie money (money which has value).
It doesn't matter what its made of, so long as it is redeemable in actual assets.
Like one liter of clean water, or perhaps a gallon of gasoline, or one ounce of silver, or a pound of meat, or a pair of shoes, or a shirt...something of value.
The value must be a set weight or measure as determined by law.
The United States used to have this, until 1913 and the Federal Reserve System.
Fiat money (what the banks issue) is worthless and THAT'S why we are slaves to debt.
If Peter and Jacque actually knew this about our money system then they should have put this in their movies instead of attacking money and Capitalism.
These two are suffering from the same errors as Marx and Engles.
Capitalism redistributes wealth from the banks/corporations/and government TO the proletariat because money has actual value and thus the people of the society hold the wealth of that society in their hands/savings because the money has real value.
Corporatism redistributes wealth to the banks and corporations via a credit/debt based fiat money system (even if gold/silver is used as currency) because the banks have title [ownership] of the money.
While Socialism redistributes wealth to the government and by extension the politicians since money in a Socialist system has no value but is controlled by the state through a government central bank rather than a private one.
Guess which one of these three is the most egalitarian?
Yep, you guessed it, actual Capitalism.
You know, the system promoted by John Locke and Adam Smith.
I'll leave you with this quote from a true Liberal like myself:
|2011-01-29, 04:28||Link #14|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Hmmm. Well on the otherhand, if we all thought the same way, the world would be an incredibly dull place. Oh we'd survive, but as nothing more than shells...sleep, eat, labor, reproduce when the system requires balance. Sure they may be some differences based on what labor is required (mental, menial, skilled, etc...), but otherwise if we thought the same....what joy is there? Everyone likes the same music...the same art...the same games...the same style everything.
Trouble is...with people thinking different and all...is that is creates conflict. Sometimes its minor like say a conflict between a large group of fans and the one guy that has Jar Jar Binks as his favorate character. It is a minor thing. Or that one guy doesn't like mushrooms on his pizza when everyone else in the room does. Minor. But then there are the things that cause wars and other things less savory. Or things that might seem simple but have been argued for generations now (I'll use a heavy one...abortion. We did that in a Political Science class and figured out what the problem between the groups was...they aren't debating....since each side has a different point that isn't the opposite of the oppessing groups. An arguement would be if they were debating two sides of the same issue....abortion isn't like that...they are debating two seperate issues that have nothing to do with each other...thus the issue cannot be resolved.) These conflicts are just something that happens because we don't think the same way. We can't think the same way...not entirely. Simply having two people in a room...they will disagree on something, eventually. It is just how we are.
As for the movie. I'm not entirely sure I want to see this. While I like Carl Sagan, I have issues with changing my world view (a reason I didn't join the military in the 1990s). Sure I'll probably get my view changed by something at some point...but I'd rather do it when I have my own way to change things.
|2011-01-29, 09:15||Link #15|
Kurumada's lost child
Join Date: Nov 2003
Never ever make up your mind based on the opinions of others, test the idea yourself and then draw your own conclusions. The movie is already an internet phenomenon that is attracting the attention of the masses unlike anything before in the movement. The reason is because it has a very appealing message that is grounded in facts and reality. Don't let Gumdan or sites such as infowars.com scare you into thinking it is some dark plot to brainwash the masses and offer them in silver platter to the New World Order
PS. By the way, it seems Google is already censoring the movie by suppressing it from the most watched videos list in youtube.
Edit: Gumdan, I have already posted the same video on money as debt in my first post. (You should probably just post the link to the first part in order to reduce spam and make this page easier to read) I have already expressed my position on why just removing interests and giving money real value based on material assets is not enough to do away with social stratification and mass consumerism, which are the biggest problems that current paradigm brings to this world. Money itself is the problem because it empowers the ego bringing it out of balance. However, I do agree on the fact that removing Usury would have massive positive effects on society, but the underlying problem would still be there. As long as we have social stratification there won't be any real change in society.
Last edited by Sugetsu; 2011-01-29 at 10:29.
|2011-01-29, 14:33||Link #16|
Join Date: May 2009
I think that for the unsuspecting viewers of this new movie it is only fair that someone show clearly and concisely what the people who made this film (and the first one) are actually like.
This interview is classic contradiction by Peter "Joseph" Merola and gives us a deeper look into what kind of person this man really is.
On the one hand he calls people who question the motives of power-groups calling for a New World Order (and that term does apply to different movements which are not the same) a "psychotic group of religious fanatics."
On the other hand he admits that the international banks have set up their own version of a New [ Economic ] World Order. He even says they already have it.
Therefore, using his own criteria, Peter has just admitted that he's a "psychotic religious fanatic" who sees capitalism as "evil."
He then moves on to defame, attack, and villify those who disagree with his views.
Dismissing them as idiots who "just don't get it."
The problem for Peter is that many of his harshest critics are well educated and do "get it."
We just don't like what we see because we've seen it before in socialistic movements of the past.
Like many charismatic socialistic-cult leaders, Peter Merola clearly exhibits many traits common in psychopathic behaviour.
I'm not saying he IS clinically psychopathic, I'm saying that he has traits they have.
Here's the checklist for psychopathy:
Other Related Qualities:
(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of Doctors H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)
Peter (in his movies and his interviews) exhibits traits 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,15.
I'll let people here decide for themselves on just how many traits Peter has, but those are the ones that jump out at me.
As for H.G. Wells...
Joseph is being completely dishonest about H.G. Well's book The New World Order.
Here's a pdf version of it if anyone actually wants to read it:
The New World Order by H.G. Wells
It is well known that H.G. Well's was an early member of the Fabian Socialist movement (founded by George Bernard Shaw, and Beatrice and Sidney Webb).
The Fabians did in fact support Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and other brutal leftist socialistic regimes.
Wells left the Fabians in 1908 because they were not radical enough for him.
Therefore, it is clear why Peter Joseph defends Well's vision of a New World Order (Zeitgeist mirrors it) and only further illustrates that Jacque and Peter are Utopian Socialists.
Wells himself writes (in Chapter 4: Class-War):
The problem for Jacque and Peter is that they both seemed to have missed the part where Wells states:
Guess he forgot that part when he made Zeitgeist.
The real issue here is that Peter and Jacque are continuing to push the lie that Capitalism is the problem.
How can it be a problem if we're not even living under it?
Unlike Jacque or Peter (well, yet for Merola) H.G. Wells came to resent and reject Marxism. He said of Marx:
They just refuse to accept the reality of praxeology and the fact that money is not the problem.
It is the marriage of government and banks that are now and always have been the root cause of the disparity between the "Haves" and the "Have-nots."
|2011-01-29, 16:06||Link #17|
Join Date: Nov 2003
This whole thing is bullshit from people who watched too much Star Trek anyway. Even there the only reason their society works is because they have things like replicators making it effectively a post scarcity society where everything is effectively free. Even then, later episodes of TNG and DS9 showed pretty clearly that humans act nice and friendly, but when pushed out of their comfort zone, they're the same bastards we are today. See Sisko tricking the Romulans into a war where millions of them get killed for a good example. This will not work in real life, because we are nowhere near a post scarcity society, and even if we were, it wouldn't take much to upset the system. No new philosophy is going to change that. The cold hard physical realities of the world ensure this remains a pipedream.
|2011-01-29, 16:57||Link #18|
Witch of Betrayal
Join Date: Jan 2006
Yours is a good arguement Gundamfan, and presented in a fairly badass manner. That is a lot of material and I've just gotten through reading the thread. I'd think you want some kind of responses for all that so I'll give you mine!
"TZM and the Venus Project advocate utopian socialism"
With just the stuff those anons dug up and reading speeches between the lines, I don't think this is the case. How is Peter Joseph's full name relevant, or the fact that they have a source of income? I've heard the social security in the US isn't very good, so obviously they need some money to live?
about the classical contradiction:
When Peter called the NWO shouters names, that's in reference to the comicbook version of the story. Where the men behind the curtain are the anti-christ and the embodiment of all evil in the universe, and their plan is to kill off most people to install their new world order. This is the "misinterpretation of the NWO" as Peter called it. There exists a really vocal minority believing in such things, who see Peter as their agent and keep spamming him with emails. Also there's the comical exchange between Peter and Alex Jones about this which gained meme-like popularity and is still fresh in the memories of many people. That's why I think the "NWO" here refers to this.
The other version that Peter admits to, the economic new world order, would refer to just the universal spread of the modern banking institutions that, in a way, possess more power than goverments. I agree he should just stop talking about the NWO because it's confusing.
about the Venus Project vision being marxist and mirroring H.G. Wells' vision:
Officially their proposed model for goverment is global central planning, ran by algorithms free of any subjectivity. It's different from any past goverment model because it's a global system, doesn't involve people making opinionated descisions, is resource-based, doesn't involve currency, has a huge reduction in laws and civilian duties.
Of course, it's still science fiction and therein lies the problem. Are such algorithms even possible to make? How would they account for human values besides survival? Wouldn't the engineers of the system install subjectiveness with them? After all, machines can only do what we can, just more efficiently. Wouldn't the engineers of the system become a sort of technocracy? Even if not, what kind of leadership will we have before such a system is installed?
So this begs the question: Does the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement really believe in such possibilities? Can their model be refined to the point where it's actually applicable? Isn't this just sugarcoating to bring about some traditional totalitarian regime that deep in their hearts, they know it's going to be? Gundamfan made a point that this may be the case, but I still hope not.
After all there's no proof. It's always easier to hate and destroy, than to create. You could assert all kinds of slander about the people advocating specie money as well. I think it's actually a good idea, but aren't those people just plotting to raise the value of gold or something?
|2011-01-29, 17:14||Link #19|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Ignoring haves, have nots, or the criticisms of any social or economic system, technology is having a huge impact in the stability of the current world systems. All one has to do is look at the changes in America, Japan, or Europe in the last 60-70 years, or what so called "third world" nations are doing now.
I do agree with Fresco and Peter, that Capitalism as it exists today is not healthy for the future of the species and the general disregard for our natural resources because of the system is reaching a serious tipping point. However I also believe that the vision proposed is too advanced. There needs to be baby steps, or you'll end up producing a civilization that cannot handle the responsibilities that come with such advancements and we'll be in an even worse position than we are now.
I don't agree that we're suffering from true scarcity of things like food and energy, but rather we're suffering from market imposed scarcity. We pay farmers to not grow or destroy their crops, we have huge resistance to alternative energies because oil is still profitable, etc. Our garbage piles overflow with cyclical consumption because our recycling technologies suck and it is usually cheaper to make something from scratch than from recycled materials.
The Venus Project has lofty goals and maybe one day future generations will see that most of it isn't as bad as they feared, however we'll never arrive at that point until we pick apart the current system and address those shortcomings asap.
The problem with this movie, even though I enjoyed watching it, was that the ideas don't evolve into solutions. Basically what I got out of it was:
1. Current system sucks, let's change it
3. Venus Project!
That's unrealistic no matter how true or false the evidence supporting the argument for change is. It's also the reason why people will continue to misunderstand or interpret the movement as a pipe dream at best and some sort of evil plot at worst.
|2011-01-29, 17:32||Link #20|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Apart from fusion power, there are laws of physics making the rest not quite impossible, but cost prohibitive if you aren't a k3 civilization. Maybe in the distant future it'll be possible, but not within our lifetimes. Technology is advancing quickly, but there haven't been many breakthroughs in fields such as mining that will give us the raw materials to build a post scarcity society. To even think about it we need well established, automated asteroid mining combined with automated processing of the mined materials and automated production of goods. The first one is the key, because we simply can't extract enough resources from the Earth to support it without turning the planet into a giant strip mine.