Who is Peter Joseph

[The One]

In late 2009, Charles Robinson was able to interview Peter Joseph, the creator of Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, several lectures and a presentation; Founder of The Zeitgeist Movement and a friend of Jack Fresco, in his home.

He described himself and his life in details in what is likely a rare interview.

He was kind enough to provide him with previously unreleased media and video and in turn Charles did his best to create a documentary (albeit kinda poor in quality compared to his work!) that would help express who this person is.

Peter Joseph was born in North Carolina to a middle class family. He has said in interviews that his mother’s role as a social worker helped shape his opinion and impressions of American life.

He later moved to New York to attend art school. Currently he lives and works in New York City as a freelance film editor/composer/producer for various industries.

Due to the controversial content of his films and a desire to keep his day job private, he has not released his full name to the public.

tw9IHJNB75E

[christian]

Alex Jones interviewed him, now that was a litmus test!

Here's the first of eleven parts of the interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9K6xzchl6M), the next part is always on top of the related videos list, it's getting really hefty towards the end. It's a good thing to observe or in this case listen to people when going gets tough I find, this is an example of it.

And be sure to listen to Peter Joseph's quick resumee of this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOmIAXp58Rk

My personal opinion?

First of all Peter didn't pass the interview test, he played the tranquil sophisticated guy on the air with Alex, but in another interview behind his back calls Alex names, he apparently didn't dare doing so to him personally.

Peter Joseph may have had a genuine desire to create a better world. But I feel, he has no real courage when it comes to trusting the human potential, as he implies that humans are inherently a plague or a virus and proposes a totally controlled society as the solution, where a supercomputer manages virtually everything. I have confidence in the human potential and am all for self-responsibility instead. Aside from that, where's the point in rigid resource control when there's free energy?

Nevertheless I massively profited from watching the Zeitgeist Movie during my 'awakening' and I still recommend it to people, who have yet no clue whatsoever about the cabal, but I give them a caveat.

[58andfixed]

Excellent contribution chiquetet.

Not only for being aware and finding the Alex Jones & Peter Joseph interview, but I endorse your assessment & perspective.

I personally find some faults in both Alex & Peter in their perspective for 'symptoms versus problem,' however it is little different from my assessment of George Gurdjieff, Eckhart Tolle, Course in Miracles, J. Z. Knight and many others.

I am not faulting the self promotion process of self-discovery or their discoveries.

What specifically I find fault in is the [and this is a simplification, so put on your 'broad generalization radar detector' hat of my assessment now]:
~~ "Here is something new, you should think differently, just do it with my bias - as your guru."

Yes, the process of trusting people to self-reveal to themselves the issues, their complicity in permitting the symptoms, and the grief that will be necessary to endure to bring about sustainable change, but it is much more respectful, allows for unique perspectives, and also allows for the very real possibility that the student will come up with a better delivery than the teacher.

I have at times been overwhelmed with the material I have discovered over the last 15 years, however I have been overwhelmed with the nature of humans for the last 53 years.

Life could be much more enjoyable for a lot more people, and it would be nice to go there eventually.

For now it behooves us to sort out how we got to this point, before we begin the attempt to implement what we think is a solution.

I'm very with the assessment from a lot of the ANONYMOUS participants, in that this is the 'information dissemination' stage.

BTW is the chiquetet related to the musician ?

I'm speculating that cycling creates a lot of opportunity for contemplation for you. It has for me.

- 58

[christian]

You are sweet as sugar pie mate. :hug:


I personally find some faults in both Alex & Peter in their perspective for 'symptoms versus problem,' however it is little different from my assessment of George Gurdjieff, Eckhart Tolle, Course in Miracles, J. Z. Knight and many others.

When it comes to Alex, he plays a role by focusing on more tangible issues that are easier to comprehend for those who are not aware of the bigger picture.


What specifically I find fault in is the [and this is a simplification, so put on your 'broad generalization radar detector' hat of my assessment now]:
~~ "Here is something new, you should think differently, just do it with my bias - as your guru."

That's indeed key. That's what I like about Alex, that he constantly appeals to common sense, that he admits he is not perfect at all, and that he calls upon the courage and love for humanity in everyone, to become the change one wants to see.


BTW is the chiquetet related to the musician ?

I'm speculating that cycling creates a lot of opportunity for contemplation for you. It has for me.

I don't know a musician who goes by that name. It was the title of Arlich Vomalites (later known as Thoth in Egypt, Hermes in Greece and Mercury in Rome) in Atlantean times and means 'wisdom seeker'.

Cycling really does provide a lot of opportunity for contemplation. Actually I experience it as letting go of conceptual thinking and every now and then suddenly epiphanies manifest. Then I discern those with my heart from as many angles as possible and eventually let go again. It's really about devoting time to let go and just being open without any attachement to what might or might not occur during that time of meditation and anyways apart from epiphanies there is an energetic aspect to it that can be seen and felt, that I appreciate, I mean both from cycling and meditating. But to be honest, I rather walk than ride a bike. :biggrin1:

[copperstone]

If nothing else, the Zeitgeist movement super-imposes a framework/schematic onto our present system and paradigm. It comes from a place of rigorous scientific objectivity (the scientific method is key in the movement) in order to appeal to the limited logic of our present system.

It does not go into here-say, it does not consider uber-variable whistle-blower testimony and it does not dwell on subjective esoteric language which often has 'clique'-like connotations to those who are privy to their meanings, (I feel) to preserve its scientific/objective integrity in the eyes of the mainstream or to those that require that sort of rigorous objectivism. From what I can tell, with the wearing of scientific-tinted-glasses it considers where we are now, what makes us into what we are, what is wrong with our system and the most logical steps into having a better system. It makes it clear that science is not cold, rather it is a direct physical projection of creativity and hence humanity- An AI super computer will not take over the world and enslave us as it is an expression of our humanity, and unless the ability to do harm was programmed into the AI super computer, it would only be there to serve us- not too dissimilar to a collective pace-maker.

Of course, I myself have experienced aspects of the collective awakening at hand, and the zeitgeist movies are close to my heart as they were pivotal 'paradigm busters' for me- an aspect of this movement which is extremely valuable and for which they are not given the credit they deserve. Since then I have started taking note of my intuitive processes which has bizarrely led to almost exponential increases in synchronisities to the extent that synchronistic occurrences are like a hidden language in plain view to be deciphered- like a treasure map which is leading me somewhere i'm not quite aware of (yet), like a pop-up HUD with alien numerals or the proverbial 'glitch in the matrix'...

...This is exactly the type of language Zeitgeist (Peter Joseph) avoids, and personally I think that is absolutely fine! If anything we are lucky that we have been provided with an aspect of awakening which comes from such a different place. I see it as refreshing, an expression/manifestation of the sheer diversity of the collective awakening- something which gives the very notion of an awakening even more weight as every facet of society is experiencing some form of it.

[58andfixed]

"chiquetete-esta cobardía" might be the name of a song, and was the closest I could find.

Now that you've pointed me in a specific direction, I've since found:

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/drunfris.html

"Toth is a specific historical man who went through ascension 52,000 years ago."

"For 6,000 years he was the king of Atlantis, where his name was Chiquetet Arlich Vomalites."

"He remained on Earth in the same body until May 4,1991."

Interesting.

My perspective expects that this physical form has been my first, although I can and have accessed 'collective thinking of mankind.'

One cultural idea I associate with not native to me, [pun-in-10-did] is that of the 'totem,' and my totem would be the ant.

And I too split allegiances between cycles and walking, as different environments are conducive to one better than the other.

I would otherwise have difficulty committing to preferring one over the other.

Since I've been 'collecting notions' for so long, I've stopped trying to anticipating the environmental variables that will contribute to having one, other than questinq on a question.

Enjoyable environments such as hiking, cycling, picnicking or simply in a park soaking up sun are my favorites, and are more likely to create an opportunity for reflection & recollections as they are likely to create 'notions.'

- 58


BTW is the chiquetet related to the musician ?

I'm speculating that cycling creates a lot of opportunity for contemplation for you. It has for me.

I don't know a musician who goes by that name. It was the title of Arlich Vomalites (later known as Thoth in Egypt, Hermes in Greece and Mercury in Rome) in Atlantean times and means 'wisdom seeker'.

Cycling really does provide a lot of opportunity for contemplation. Actually I experience it as letting go of conceptual thinking and every now and then suddenly epiphanies manifest. Then I discern those with my heart from as many angles as possible and eventually let go again. It's really about devoting time to let go and just being open without any attachement to what might or might not occur during that time of meditation and anyways apart from epiphanies there is an energetic aspect to it that can be seen and felt, that I appreciate, I mean both from cycling and meditating. But to be honest, I rather walk than ride a bike. :biggrin1:

[58andfixed]

So eloquently expressed.

It is rare indeed to recognize one transitioning from a life full of distraction, to one that is not only aware, but able to interpret positive values in our unique and different approaches. To see value in collaboration.

I look forward to more posts from you and others similarly so minded. It reminds me of:

"Gimli: Soon Master Elf, you will enjoy the fabled hospitality of the dwarves. Roaring fires, malt beer, ripe meat off the bone."

- 58

If anything we are lucky that we have been provided with an aspect of awakening which comes from such a different place.

I see it as refreshing, an expression/manifestation of the sheer diversity of the collective awakening - something which gives the very notion of an awakening even more weight as every facet of society is experiencing some form of it.

[christian]

If nothing else, the Zeitgeist movement super-imposes a framework/schematic onto our present system and paradigm. It comes from a place of rigorous scientific objectivity (the scientific method is key in the movement) in order to appeal to the limited logic of our present system.

I appreciate Peter Joseph for adressing the need of thinking about solutions, but scientific objectivity is an oxymoron. Science cannot be objective, because it is always biased by what has been successfully described through scientific concepts so far. Thus it would be very limiting. If there would be any such thing as scientific objectivity, then there would also be religious objectivity, racial objectivity, you name it.

Whatever super-computer would be designed, it could not have all information and would not be all-encompassing, thus it would be limiting everyone, who wants to express himself beyond what this super-computer can conceive.

I see auras, but have no motivation of producing a scientific paper on it, yet I find that this energy, that I feel and observe is crucial. I don't remember who said that, but there's a famous quote from a scientist stating: If humanity would devote one year to the exploration and cultivation of consciousness, it would evolve more than during 100 years devoted to technological advancement.

There's no way, I'd subjugate to a computer. Not least because this reminds me of this 'Odyssee 2001' scenario.

The other thing, that Peter Joseph gets completly wrong in my opinion, is that he thinks our system is wrong because we are too stupid and too unlogical. I see it rather as being designed just the way it is for the purpose of enslavement and control, in that regard it is very logical. This has to be simply overcome by self-responsible decent people, refusing to support this system.

Proceeding from there, there is no need for a rigid system to control the then free humanity, because self-responsible decent people take care of themselves naturally.

I'm still listening to his interview with Alex Jones, I never did so before in its entirety and Alex just asked "How do you know that there isn't more, like a soul"? And Peter answers "it's highly improbable". When this is Peter's belief, will this be reflected in the system he proposes? A soulless system? Go figure.

Update: Peter just said "technology is our saviour". Exploring our innate true potential will make us our own saviour, imho, technology that can be conceived by today's science pales when compared to the amazing features of mind-energy and free-energy based on the fact, that energy is abundant and everywhere, which has not yet been clearly described in the mainstream science field, although it has been found out before and been locked away and supressed.

Just finished the interview, Alex' last words: "I appreciate your work Peter, it makes people think, I know you mean well and you are a great guy". Compare that with Peter's comment on Alex, that I posted before.

[copperstone]

Like I said, it serves as a paradigm buster for many; a starting point for those who are at that point in their evolution. Arguing semantics I find to be the most wasteful of all endeavors. Language is an inherently weak and limited tool for the task of translating human comprehension/thought process. I understand where you are coming from, but what is objectivity? Is it not the concept of eliminating variables, unencumbered by baseless opinion in the pursuit of truth? Is this not the exact principle of the scientific method? Our 'vibrational sound complexes' are rife with mis-interpretations and distortion :)...

I must make it clear that I am being devils advocate here. I understand certain aspects of the 'old world scientific view' can be overridden by the torrents of newly accessible information in our collective consciousness. I don't disagree with you because I know what you mean, but surely (from a conservative/mainstream point of view) the scientific method is merely a powerful tool for sorting wheat from the chaff? The flaw is in human ego tarnishing the process.

One of the fundamental principles of the movement itself is that the only perpetual thing is change- There is no Utopia, there is not end-point where everything is known as knowledge is learned progressively like you said. From what I can remember the 'super computer' was in place to keep an extremely accurate, perpetual log of Earths resources...Hardly a sinister notion.

The real problem lies in the fact that conventional science has not yet caught up with certain aspects which many of us have started experiencing more and more- seeing auras is a wonderful example. The area of convergence in my opinion is the new quantum science of consciousness which David Wilcock (amongst others) talks about.

I have to disagree however with your assumption that Peter Joseph
thinks our system is wrong because we are too stupid and too unlogical. He states that we are a product of our environment, we are clean slates when we are born and it is the system we live in which forms us from the get-go. If anything he is lifting accountability from all of our shoulders in saying that we are born into a highly distorted/outdated system which inherently creates abhorrent behavior fueled by the notion of scarcity which he proposes is one of the founding components of greed- In other words the system we live in REWARDS abhorrent behavior, as to play the game well so to speak, one is required to be selfish, competitive, greedy and cut-throat...
Self-responisble decent people will begin to emerge in greater numbers when scarcity is all but eliminated...Not too far off what Steven Greer proposes is the route of our problems- lack of abundance and free energy.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

I havn't quite got the hang of inserting tidy quotations yet chiquetet, apologies :)

[realitycorrodes]

Peter Joseph did remarkably well spending over an hour being insulted by Alex Jones.

Not to confront Alex Jones with his reptilian interview technique would of only brought out more of Alex Jones's reptilian mind. Is Peter Joseph not allowed to after the fact

talk about the disgracefully abusive behaviour of Alex Jones to others? Of course he is, facts are facts!

Peter Joseph is putting forward an alternative perspective on how to procede into the future. Name a few others who have such ground breaking perspectives? The way I see it I don't see too many people stepping forward with other alternatives.

I would rather go for the dreams of Peter Joseph than stick with the system we have now...but I would be open to other peoples "alternatives to the system we are in" - but where are they?

Using the 10% of what Peter Joseph says is dodgy, so lets just forget about it and stick with the 99% dodgy system we are in now is very sad.

How is an alternative perspective every to come forward if they are immediately rejected because they are not already perfect. That's why Peter Joseph describes an "emergent" alternative.

[christian]

From what I can remember the 'super computer' was in place to keep an extremely accurate, perpetual log of Earths resources...Hardly a sinister notion.

And based on that, the computer decides how to handle the resources, now if that isn't creepy...

Do you count your hairs, before you comb them? Do you count the noodles, before you cook them? A good arithmetician needs no abacus. This computer and the apparatus around it would actually waste resources and propagate the notion, that everything has to be controlled from the outside in order to work properly. Proper order comes from a proper mindset, a proper state of being, living from the heart.


He states that we are a product of our environment, we are clean slates when we are born and it is the system we live in which forms us from the get-go. If anything he is lifting accountability from all of our shoulders in saying that we are born into a highly distorted/outdated system which inherently creates abhorrent behavior fueled by the notion of scarcity which he proposes is one of the founding components of greed- In other words the system we live in REWARDS abhorrent behavior, as to play the game well so to speak, one is required to be selfish, competitive, greedy and cut-throat...

1. At some point this type of environment must have begun, thus he's falling short by stating we are shaped by the environment. Who shaped the environment in the first place? In our case: To a large degree the Annunaki.
2. He lifts weight off our shoulders by saying we are blank slates, that are shaped by society? He actually denies our power of self determination, I figure we are spiritual beings and not at all blank when we come to earth, but we are here for a purpose.
3. The system is there to further anti-social behaviour, it's true, but anyone with a heart will easily find out, that true rewards come from being compassionate, supportive and loving. It is an innate ability of humans, to feel that and even simple logic leads to the conclusion, that we a species will be better off, when we are supportive.


Self-responisble decent people will begin to emerge in greater numbers when scarcity is all but eliminated...Not too far off what Steven Greer proposes is the route of our problems- lack of abundance and free energy.

Now who will eliminate scarcity? ETs? It's the other way round: Decent people emerge and eliminate scarcity by being supportive. So the reason why there is a seeming lack of abundance and free energy is that humanity did not yet stand up to its true potential.


Not to confront Alex Jones with his reptilian interview technique would of only brought out more of Alex Jones's reptilian mind. Is Peter Joseph not allowed to after the fact talk about the disgracefully abusive behaviour of Alex Jones to others? Of course he is, facts are facts!

Can you explain to me through at least one example, how Alex uses a 'reptilian interview technique'? Honestly I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this some kind of though-terminating knockout-argument?

Peter is allowed to speak freely, that's why he should be honest to Alex about his feelings and impressions, but it's apparent, that he doesn't dare to tell Alex some things personally, thus Peter is impolite by only voicing his critique behind Alex' back.


Peter Joseph is putting forward an alternative perspective on how to procede into the future. Name a few others who have such ground breaking perspectives? The way I see it I don't see too many people stepping forward with other alternatives.

I would rather go for the dreams of Peter Joseph than stick with the system we have now...but I would be open to other peoples "alternatives to the system we are in" - but where are they?

Naming a few others: Benjamin Fulford, promoting decency and common sense, Michael Tellinger, who promotes contributionism and virtually everyone, who appeals to common sense and our true potential. It's pointless to name them all, it's too many, I'm among them. I'm not for a fancy system at all, because it's inside, where the true change has to occur, Peter Joseph doesn't understand that, he doesn't even realize that there is such thing as a soul.

I would rather use my own discernment than go with anyone else's dreams. If my discernment comes up with something that is the same, that others envision, that's just fine, I appreciate that. It's not a choice between the Venus Project and the current system, common sense mate, it's not about following a leader or some concept, it's about everyone taking responsiblity and contributing something from the heart :cool:

[copperstone]

The super computer would be programmed by humans. The computer you are using now is making all kinds of decisions, but they are decisions which are led by YOUR input! Just like if we were to take a laptop to the past to show our ancestors they would have considered it 'creepy' too :D

Don't forget, the concept of this super computer is borne from an abhorrent, distorted, disease stricken society- In these terms (and these terms alone) it is therefore a sound conclusion to make- in a world where 2% of the population owns 98% of the worlds wealth, surely resource management is high on the agenda of those who are unaware of the big picture? Surely it is a logical step to take?


I figure we are spiritual beings and not at all blank when we come to earth, but we are here for a purpose.

And I agree with you, but is it provable in the terms of this movement? In terms of the scientific method? Not really, and this is the point at which one paradigm ends and another begins- things will get a lot more interesting when these two worlds meet.


but anyone with a heart will easily find out, that true rewards come from being compassionate, supportive and loving. It is an innate ability of humans, to feel that and even simple logic leads to the conclusion, that we a species will be better off, when we are supportive.

Scarcity breeds distortion...It brings out the brutal survival instincts which are in all of us. If a mother and her child are starving, with no other options, there is little she won't do to provide for herself and her child... Again I agree with you up to a point. Its all well and good to say that there are rewards that come from being compassionate, supportive and loving- great stuff- but you try tell that to someone who does not have their basic needs met. Sure there are plenty of stories of people with nothing showing acts of extreme kindness and selflessness, I've experienced it first hand, but in terms of the big picture, there are aspects of our 'civilization' which need major tweaking and the abandonment of the monetary system is just the best option (in a physical sense).

There are non-physical inner collective changes which I am sure you are aware of going on as we speak - just because Peter Joseph may not be at that point of his evolution is no reason to discount everything he says...


So the reason why there is a seeming lack of abundance and free energy is that humanity did not yet stand up to its true potential.

The reasons are complex and intricate, but in a nutshell this is what this collective awakening is all about isn't it?- waking up to our true potential? Its all happening simultaneously on different levels- this movement is simply part of a multi-faceted emergent frequency, and I really can't help thinking that arguing all the technicalities is such a futile and trivial exercise. I'm on the same page as you, I'm merely trying to point out the thought processes of one of the ripples of the same sea, and extracting real joy in the diverse beauty of our human potential unravelling in front of our eyes...

[58andfixed]

I'm sure many have been swooned by Peter Joseph's perspective, and likely are predisposed to it because of the reaction against Organized Religion from an earlier life experience.

The costs for humanity is the unfortunate loss of the subjective & non-scientific possibilities, approaches or perspectives as a lifestyle choice.

I see negative value in Organized Religion not as a reaction [which is where I assess Peter is coming from, however I have also picked up a similar bias of David Icke] to an earlier life experience, but from a mind-set that limits personal exploration and involvement with life.

Hierarchy, peer pressure & conformity are not conducive to a more involved kind of thinking and living. I often make the comparison between 'mere belief' and living ones' choices.

I think civilization has many more options than simply Islam, Judea-Christian, Atheistic, Scientific-Trans-humanist, or any of the guru-dogma-temple conformist approaches to life.

A non-hierarchal, wider range of personal choice as an acceptable lifestyle seems to be too foreign to our current thinking process.

I think joy, alternatives, acceptance [way beyond mere tolerance], vibrancy, exploration and understanding are some of the benefits we miss from our current conformist way of life.

Both Peter & Alex have their positive points, and neither are wrong, yet neither offer a comprehensive perspective of "The Problem" or what I believe to be complete solutions.

I have been fortunate to have been exposed to both, benefited from both, and am capable of seeing with consistent clarity the same "Problem" and mere symptoms both before I seen either of their material, and remains so today.

This thread, I must say, has benefited greatly from some extremely well thought out positions that I rarely find even here on PA.

It happens from time-to-time... :)

- 58

Alex just asked "How do you know that there isn't more, like a soul"?

And Peter answers "it's highly improbable".

Update: Peter just said "technology is our saviour".

[copperstone]

Based on Peters framework, a soul is indeed an improbable notion. It would be irresponsible of him to submit himself towards such an "absurd and primitive ideal", symptomatic of scarcity... If one is being academically astute and consistent (and I feel this is what PJ is trying to be), then no, we don't have a soul, and it is technology which has given me the glasses on my face and the blender in my kitchen which allows me to pre-masticate my raw fruit and veggies....

I believe the thought processes which have brought him to such conclusions are akin to wiping a table clear of its scattered contents, in a hurried fashion, in order to draw up some emergency plans. His approach is indeed symptomatic of the problems at hand, similar to a primary lymphatic response in an organism which has taken ill.

"lets put aside all the 'unprovable stuff' just for the minute, and lets tackle the tangible, accessible aspects first- then once everyone is fed and their physical nourishment sustained, spiritual nourishment shall be the natural segue". I really feel this is what he is trying to achieve...

Do forgive me, I have a terrible affliction of late of being drawn to ring out the positives rather than dwell on negatives. I am you, you are me, all is one :)

[nearing]

I have watched both the OP video and the AJ interview and I must say I agree wholeheartedly with all that copperstone has said above. In fact, I haven't much more to add because he/she has stated my thoughts so well already.

I would love to live to see PJ's plans, especially the part about getting grid of money, come to fruition.

[58andfixed]

You have very much meat on the bone here copperstone, so to stay focused on the essentials of where The One pointed this thread -- the essence of Peter Joseph, highlighted by the Alex Jones interview, to discern things that may be missed, I picked out some items to address.

For sure, something we do or think is contributing to "lack."

Peter suggests wealth/financial [over simplified, yes], Steven Greer suggests energy, David Wilcock & many others suggest consciousness - which many think is too vague to do anything with.

From some 50 odd years of having recognized a 'lack of desire for understanding among each other,' I believe there is something more subtle, yet quite tangible and conquerable a task -- if one believes in the validity of the potential for change from addressing this issue.

How we think contributes to the thoughts we have, contributes to our choices we make, and consequences we experience.

We have been cultivated to think in a very lazy way, which in its essence is simply believing in things we think we like, or not believing in things we think we don't like.

Wikipedia has this down as a "List of Cognitive Biases."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

A slightly different approach is by Heron Stone, something he calls "The Five Stupidities of English." A one hour podcast of the thesis is expounded on here:

09/04/2011 10:00 PM EDT - episode #648

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=25018&pageNumber=1&pageSize=15

Once the much more basic issue of how we think, which our speech reflects, and how our biases can be mitigated, we are on the road to dialogging on observations of issues, understanding, collaborating and discussing potential solutions.

Until this elemental issue is confronted, we will run into divisive behavior and get stuck into defending our biased approach.

I invite feedback and/or from anyone here on this analysis.

- 58


I understand certain aspects of the 'old world scientific view' can be overridden by the torrents of newly accessible information in our collective consciousness.

.. but surely the scientific method is merely a powerful tool for sorting wheat from the chaff?

The area of convergence in my opinion is the new quantum science of consciousness which David Wilcock (among others) talks about.

Not too far off what Steven Greer proposes is the route of our problems- lack of abundance and free energy.

[RedeZra]

..., as he implies that humans are inherently a plague or a virus and proposes a totally controlled society as the solution, where a supercomputer manages virtually everything.

he has at least an elitist mindset ; )

[58andfixed]

I do note the equivalent thesis by Alex Jones on rounding up the Illuminati, processing them through the justice system, and seizing their assets accumulated under dubious methods.

Both proposals [Peter Joseph's elimination of lack, to free people] are offerings of 'chicken & egg' proposals.

How are either of these tasks to be accomplished, whichever one becomes an eventual task, if people cannot coalesce in some degree of majority to pull these tasks through these processes, if we humans remain so easily divisive ?

I think the initial task needs to be much more fundamental, the essence of which I post here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?33164-Who-is-Peter-Joseph&p=339129&viewfull=1#post339129).

Until the elemental issue of how we think and introduce bias, can be addressed by sufficient people, the 1% will continue running the show.

Counting or splitting hairs before combing them, whether this be preferred before addressing lack, are intellectual issues that reflect bias, perspective and preference.

Improving how we think is a task that is do-able, and can begin when one sees the sense of it.

- 58

Now who will eliminate scarcity? ETs?

It's the other way round: Decent people emerge and eliminate scarcity by being supportive.

So the reason why there is a seeming lack of abundance and free energy is that humanity did not yet stand up to its true potential.

[58andfixed]

Delivered with such wit. :)

It is sad indeed, that Peter Joseph's REACTION to the religious experience has been deeply biased by some past experience that is commonly referred to as blow-back.

Yes, Organized Religion has a horrible track record. Yes, there are problems with stories in Bibles. Just because "God" has been hijacked by both has nothing to do with these two faults of man's creation and the "greater reality."

I understand this, because I run into it so often - the confusion of Organized Religion, the Bible and God. That only makes the problem to solve just a little more complicated.

It will hold back a much wider response to the Zeitgeist 'movement' as all oversimplified 'solutions' are.

Compared to the OWS 'movement' which so far simply seems to be saying "there is a problem, and we who show up willing to be arrested are concerned for our future," they have come much further, far faster and with much greater impact.

It is MSM and others that seek to subvert or hijack OWS that attempts to place 'talking points' on their shingle.

Coming up with solutions needs to address the broad spectrum of belief systems, and some sense of man's purpose for being on this planet.

Otherwise it's simply another GIGO solution that won't survive for long.

- 58

Based on Peters framework, a soul is indeed an improbable notion..

"lets put aside all the 'unprovable stuff' just for the minute, and lets tackle the tangible, accessible aspects first- then once everyone is fed and their physical nourishment sustained, spiritual nourishment shall be the natural segue".

[58andfixed]

Mere opinions, especially this one, contribute to division, and solve nothing.

- 58


he has at least an elitist mindset

[christian]

Based on Peters framework, a soul is indeed an improbable notion. It would be irresponsible of him to submit himself towards such an "absurd and primitive ideal", symptomatic of scarcity... If one is being academically astute and consistent (and I feel this is what PJ is trying to be), then no, we don't have a soul, and it is technology which has given me the glasses on my face and the blender in my kitchen which allows me to pre-masticate my raw fruit and veggies....

I believe the thought processes which have brought him to such conclusions are akin to wiping a table clear of its scattered contents, in a hurried fashion, in order to draw up some emergency plans. His approach is indeed symptomatic of the problems at hand, similar to a primary lymphatic response in an organism which has taken ill.

"lets put aside all the 'unprovable stuff' just for the minute, and lets tackle the tangible, accessible aspects first- then once everyone is fed and their physical nourishment sustained, spiritual nourishment shall be the natural segue". I really feel this is what he is trying to achieve.

Do forgive me, I have a terrible affliction of late of being drawn to ring out the positives rather than dwell on negatives. I am you, you are me, all is one :)

You are explaining how and why Peter's perspective is limited, fair enough. Psychic phenomena are entirely provable, by the way, Ingo Swann for example did a great job on that working together with scientists. They are proven to exist, but it has not been entirely described how they function. The dilemma there is, once someone made the leap to personally experience such things, one is not really in the realm of old-paradigm science anymore and usually lost credibility among those who are.

Instead of being academically astute I rather am non-attached, thus not limiting myself and envisioning the highest and best for all. Not some emergency totalitarianism.


The super computer would be programmed by humans. The computer you are using now is making all kinds of decisions, but they are decisions which are led by YOUR input! Just like if we were to take a laptop to the past to show our ancestors they would have considered it 'creepy' too :D

Don't forget, the concept of this super computer is borne from an abhorrent, distorted, disease stricken society- In these terms (and these terms alone) it is therefore a sound conclusion to make- in a world where 2% of the population owns 98% of the worlds wealth, surely resource management is high on the agenda of those who are unaware of the big picture? Surely it is a logical step to take?

Showing someone a computer is one thing. Letting a computer determine what to do with life is another. You say this computer is programmed by (fallable) humans born from an abhorrent society. And this computer should manage resources? Why do you think people would obey to this? If there are rules, people will circumvent them, that's the nature of it. Change has to occur inside. Again, if you are in the proper set of mind and heart, you will not use resources indulgently. I'm not against using technology, but not trusting the human capacity for making wise and compassionate choices and instead leaving the choice to a computer makes no sense. If we are really not to be trusted, we would surely not obey to the computer's decision anyways.




I figure we are spiritual beings and not at all blank when we come to earth, but we are here for a purpose.

And I agree with you, but is it provable in the terms of this movement? In terms of the scientific method? Not really, and this is the point at which one paradigm ends and another begins- things will get a lot more interesting when these two worlds meet.

To millions and maybe billions of people this is evident, do you want to leave those out of the movement or force them to hold back by saying "Let's first manage all resources with a computer and then discover the true nature of consciousness. Everybody on board? Let's go." It's just another extremism that falls short of dealing with the reality of the situation.


Scarcity breeds distortion...It brings out the brutal survival instincts which are in all of us. If a mother and her child are starving, with no other options, there is little she won't do to provide for herself and her child... Again I agree with you up to a point. Its all well and good to say that there are rewards that come from being compassionate, supportive and loving- great stuff- but you try tell that to someone who does not have their basic needs met. Sure there are plenty of stories of people with nothing showing acts of extreme kindness and selflessness, I've experienced it first hand, but in terms of the big picture, there are aspects of our 'civilization' which need major tweaking and the abandonment of the monetary system is just the best option (in a physical sense).

There are non-physical inner collective changes which I am sure you are aware of going on as we speak - just because Peter Joseph may not be at that point of his evolution is no reason to discount everything he says...

The fact, that he is not aware of inner realities surely prevents me from agreeing on his solutions, that are also unaware of these realities. I agree with a lot of what he says, but just because he is a nice guy and did a lot of good thing doesn't mean I have to go with his approach for a solution.

There is abundance in nature, the world has enough for everyone's needs, but not for everyone's greed, once this is realized through an inner understanding instead of some arbitrary calculation, there is no need for anyone to fight to claim someone else's food or shelter.

Abandoning money is an outer thing. It helps nothing if the state of mind and heart doesn't know how to deal with that situation.


I'm merely trying to point out the thought processes of one of the ripples of the same sea, and extracting real joy in the diverse beauty of our human potential unravelling in front of our eyes...

It's truly nice to see people becoming genuinely involved in being part of the solution. I merely try to point out, that I won't settle for PJ's dogma (a drop of water), when there is unlimited potential (the whole ocean).

[RedeZra]

the elite is against me

so I will end their line



Mere opinions, especially this one, contribute to division, and solve nothing.

- 58


he has at least an elitist mindset

[copperstone]

Mere opinions, especially this one, contribute to division, and solve nothing.

Well said!

PJ is merely filling the role which is available in these times of awakening and upheaval, this spring cleaning of the ages- There are people who require absolute academic scrutiny when it comes to information (Head>Heart) and his schematic offers them the opportunity to challenge the status-quo in their terms...

Balance is being restored (Head=Heart), convergence of different paradigms is happening- and all these different facets and intricacies are fulfilling their roles of taking the necessary steps towards returning to oneness, whether or not they 'know' it is another story altogether :)

Elitist/Plebeian, Reptilian/Pleiadian, Republican/Democrat, Tomato/Tomata

[christian]

I finally checked the mini documentary from the OP.

It becomes completly clear that he has a strictly materialistic view and wants a scientific dictatorship to prevent humanity from destructing the planet and itself.

In my opinion, economy should not be 'resource based', because that actually implies scarcity and implies that we inherently exploit anything, whenever we get the chance to do so, so he says we have to be told what to do and in what amount. I find economy - as everything else - should be 'heart based' and 'common sense' based, then we will experience abundance by being modest.

I think Peter Joseph made a great contribution when it comes to waking people up and making them think, but his proposal for a solution is flawed big time and I figure we should think for ourselves instead of follow any guru.

[wolf_rt]

Peter Joseph may have had a genuine desire to create a better world. But I feel, he has no real courage when it comes to trusting the human potential, as he implies that humans are inherently a plague or a virus.

I find the zeitgeist movement nearly as scary as bill gates.

[realitycorrodes]

Agree to disagree.