Zeitgeist 3: Moving Forward - Exposed [HQ]

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

A video voicing some concerns about Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist movement. I found it interesting. Let me know what you think.
-AIJ

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kT7b4p7u20k

MODEDIT: PLEASE, SAVE OUR TIME, AND READER'S FRUSTRATION, READ THE EMBEDDING MANUAL:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...-images-quotes

[soulrebel]

I have seen both the peter joseph interview and the david icke interview at the beginning and I can tell you that they are totally out of context. Then they go even more against the original message.

Population control might be a hard topic but could be mathematically necessary: if every couple had 3 children, given enough time there would be 10 billion people, than 20 billion, than 50, than 100, and so on, to infinity. If anyone has a different opinion, well they are saying that 2+2=5.
Peter Joseph never argued that a family that wanted 6 children could not have them, if the resources were available.

If there is enough food to feed a population of a certain size, you first grow more food, than you make more babies right?
IF there are not enough resources to increment the population AND everybody wants more than 2 children, THEN some sort of population control should be implemented.

In my opinion this guy does not get Zeitgeist and/or is a total fundamentalist of some sort. I do not recommend this video at all.

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Posted by soulrebel (here)
I have seen both the peter joseph interview and the david icke interview at the beginning and I can tell you that they are totally out of context. Then they go even more against the original message.

Population control might be a hard topic but could be mathematically necessary: if every couple had 3 children, given enough time there would be 10 billion people, than 20 billion, than 50, than 100, and so on, to infinity. If anyone has a different opinion, well they are saying that 2+2=5.
Peter Joseph never argued that a family that wanted 6 children could not have them, if the resources were available.

If there is enough food to feed a population of a certain size, you first grow more food, than you make more babies right?
IF there are not enough resources to increment the population AND everybody wants more than 2 children, THEN some sort of population control should be implemented.

In my opinion this guy does not get Zeitgeist and/or is a total fundamentalist of some sort. I do not recommend this video at all.

AIJ: yea im kind of on the fence about zeitgeist. But the whole "people shouldn't be allowed to have their own opinions" thing that fresco said kind of creeped me out. I agree with the "economy based on abundance" aspect of the zeitgeist movement though.

[soulrebel]

Posted by AlternativeInfoJunkie (here)
But the whole "people shouldn't be allowed to have their own opinions" thing that fresco said kind of creeped me out.

I can easily explain the context of that one:
"What color is the sea in your opinion?" Blue, right. That is not an opinion in fact.
Does it matter if someone has an opinion on things we know?
No, there are two kinds of things: what we know and what we don't. How do we distinguish: with science.
Scientist do not have opinions, really. They propose theories based on observation, then put them to the test. If someone comes out with a test that disproves the theory, would you consider it to be the scientist right to keep their "opinion" in alignment with the disproved theory?
For Fresco there is a theory that works so far and maybe some untested hypothesis, but no opinions. Opinions kill people, for example in Israel some people think that they deserve a piece of land and other folks should be removed. Another opinion: Bush said he was working in the name of Jesus Christ. Fresco says not to take opinions not backed by science. He is not supporting a dictatorship where one has an opinion and the other must conform, but rather the idea of verifying anything you can beyond doubts.
This is the context. I hope you might be less freaked out now :-)

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by soulrebel (here)

Posted by AlternativeInfoJunkie (here)
But the whole "people shouldn't be allowed to have their own opinions" thing that fresco said kind of creeped me out.

I can easily explain the context of that one:
"What color is the sea in your opinion?" Blue, right. That is not an opinion in fact.
Does it matter if someone has an opinion on things we know?
No, there are two kinds of things: what we know and what we don't. How do we distinguish: with science.
Scientist do not have opinions, really. They propose theories based on observation, then put them to the test. If someone comes out with a test that disproves the theory, would you consider it to be the scientist right to keep their "opinion" in alignment with the disproved theory?
For Fresco there is a theory that works so far and maybe some untested hypothesis, but no opinions. Opinions kill people, for example in Israel some people think that they deserve a piece of land and other folks should be removed. Another opinion: Bush said he was working in the name of Jesus Christ. Fresco says not to take opinions not backed by science. He is not supporting a dictatorship where one has an opinion and the other must conform, but rather the idea of verifying anything you can beyond doubts.
This is the context. I hope you might be less freaked out now :-)

Actually, it is an opinion.
Some parts of the sea are green.
Oh, and what we refer to as blue may be called something else by other people.
Facts are usually opinions that people agree to accept as solid.

[jorr lundstrom]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by soulrebel (here)

Posted by AlternativeInfoJunkie (here)
But the whole "people shouldn't be allowed to have their own opinions" thing that fresco said kind of creeped me out.

I can easily explain the context of that one:
"What color is the sea in your opinion?" Blue, right. That is not an opinion in fact.
Does it matter if someone has an opinion on things we know?
No, there are two kinds of things: what we know and what we don't. How do we distinguish: with science.
Scientist do not have opinions, really. They propose theories based on observation, then put them to the test. If someone comes out with a test that disproves the theory, would you consider it to be the scientist right to keep their "opinion" in alignment with the disproved theory?
For Fresco there is a theory that works so far and maybe some untested hypothesis, but no opinions. Opinions kill people, for example in Israel some people think that they deserve a piece of land and other folks should be removed. Another opinion: Bush said he was working in the name of Jesus Christ. Fresco says not to take opinions not backed by science. He is not supporting a dictatorship where one has an opinion and the other must conform, but rather the idea of verifying anything you can beyond doubts.
This is the context. I hope you might be less freaked out now :-)

Actually, it is an opinion.
Some parts of the sea are green.
Oh, and what we refer to as blue may be called something else by other people.
Facts are usually opinions that people agree to accept as solid.

Yeah. It takes a lot of subjectiv operations to mask something as objective. LOL

[soulrebel]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
Actually, it is an opinion.
Some parts of the sea are green.
Oh, and what we refer to as blue may be called something else by other people.

That is really not getting the point. If I had said "at what temperature (in Celsius) water freezes at the sea level?"
Less simple to read, but the true content is the same.

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
Facts are usually opinions that people agree to accept as solid.

That we can't call "fact". If you and I and an other billion people will agree that the earth is flat, it would be a lot of wrong opinions, the fact is that it is not flat.
Many people can accept something "as a fact", when in fact it is not. That is why Fresco says that things should be tested. Test results are facts, if the test is carried out correctly.

Human language is not a fact, but an opinion, so you may think that the word "fact" has a different meaning, but that risk of being misunderstood we take every time we speak anything other than math and computer code.

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Posted by soulrebel (here)

Posted by AlternativeInfoJunkie (here)
But the whole "people shouldn't be allowed to have their own opinions" thing that fresco said kind of creeped me out.

I can easily explain the context of that one:
"What color is the sea in your opinion?" Blue, right. That is not an opinion in fact.
Does it matter if someone has an opinion on things we know?
No, there are two kinds of things: what we know and what we don't. How do we distinguish: with science.
Scientist do not have opinions, really. They propose theories based on observation, then put them to the test. If someone comes out with a test that disproves the theory, would you consider it to be the scientist right to keep their "opinion" in alignment with the disproved theory?
For Fresco there is a theory that works so far and maybe some untested hypothesis, but no opinions. Opinions kill people, for example in Israel some people think that they deserve a piece of land and other folks should be removed. Another opinion: Bush said he was working in the name of Jesus Christ. Fresco says not to take opinions not backed by science. He is not supporting a dictatorship where one has an opinion and the other must conform, but rather the idea of verifying anything you can beyond doubts.
This is the context. I hope you might be less freaked out now :-)

o ok. in that context it does sound less sinister haha. do you know the context for the "children are bad and don't listen so we shouldn't want to have children" (paraphrasing) quote?

[soulrebel]

I'll do more I will ask the guy on youtube for a list of the sources he used to make this clip.
I don't think he will even publish my comment though.

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Posted by soulrebel (here)
I'll do more I will ask the guy on youtube for a list of the sources he used to make this clip.
I don't think he will even publish my comment though.

well thanks for clearing stuff up for me at least. it really doesnt sound that bad when the context is explained.

[jimmer]

thanks AIJ.
now I think I've got a handle on it:

individual sublimation + cataclysmic event + eugenics + a pledge of allegiance to the environment + loving servitude + predictive programming + U.N. $ + dominant elites = ZEITGEIST

where do I sign up?

[NunoSav]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pg5K07c72Tw

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=b9WEWcbfnHg

[Globetrotter]

This is probably one of the most interesting, and important, threads on PA right now, because it gets right down to the nub of the human dilemma. Do we believe in the sacrosanctity of free will, the individual's right to choose? Or do we allow ourselves to be convinced by very intelligent and for the most part (imo) well-meaning individuals that our collective future is in jeopardy unless we give up such antiquated, misguided and ultimately selfish notions such as individualism and free will?

I never thought, as one whose core values were forged in those wonderful Utopian times of the Sixties counterculture, that one day I'd quote Barry Goldwater in defense of what I hold most dear, but here goes:

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed."

I don't care how perfect, rational, philanthropic and compassionate your vision of a harmonious society of the future. If it's based on human master-planning by well-meaning Others, and not the spontaneous, natural evolution of blossoming individual human consciousness, then it carries within its dreamy vision the seeds of the destruction of the very qualities that make us human. For better or for worse. For we, as humans, ARE both the better AND the worse. If we don't make it to the Fifth World on our own individual all-too-human steam, it's far better to start over again and try to get it right the next time than marching lock-step into a Brave New World where tomorrow's controllers are today's well-meaning Utopians.

BTW, both Jacques Fresco and Peter Joseph give me the creeps. The arrogance!

[theguardian]

I start to think that a certain part of the Zeitgeist is to make people to accept the tptb agenda. little truth , disinfo and re programming.

[Milan]

I think that the message they are trying to put out with the recent movie is quite simple, and I would totally agree with the overall message that the world is in decline in many ways and if we don't change fundamental paradigms which dictate the totality of out existence on this planet, our civilization as we know it will collapse upon itself and be reduced to the dustbin of the history of our universe. Rapid population growth is not sustainable in the CURRENT paradigm where the monetary system inevitably leads to the ever so often occurring situation where the rich keep getting richer on the expense of the poor getting poorer. Whats even worse is that the entire development of that process i based on lie, on a system that is in it's core; corrupt and corrupting. Now imagine on top of that, if you will, rapid population growth in the worst possible places of the world, leading only to make that already very large group of people worldwide living on 2 dollars a day even larger. Not to mention the expanding quota of 40.000+ people going through the process of death through starvation every day. How is that sustainable in any way? Population control is necessary in global monetary world because there is only so much wealth that is considered attachable to money to spread around. What we perceive as an imbalance is in actuality balance for the wealthiest 2 % on this planet, because they KNOW that there way of living depends on the rest of the 98 % living like they do. Creating a system which offers abundance of wealth is the only way to actually make population growth sustainable and nullify the need of population control. The Venus Project offers a point of view, not an infallible solution. The idea of liberation though technological development should be debated for it's value in itself, and not to be depended on the people who perpetuate that value, because people come and go. Sure technology is a two-edged sword but so is every other idea every introduced to man. Duality is inescapable in this existence. If something ultimately becomes a force for good is up to us, and I believe that the Venus Project has humanities best at heart.

This planet has to, at some point in "time" make the painful transition from a type 0 civilization to a type 1 civilization. This is a very dangerous transition but perhaps the most important one. Either we make it, or we don't. Being a type 0 civilization is not sustainable so we either evolve or die, and by we I mean everyone. Technology plays a huge part in this transition and it has to be at a certain stage of development for the transition to even be possible. Now consider if you will, living in a type 1 civilization. Does that kind of civilization have nations which historical purpose was to be created so it could wage war on other nations, because it was the only way geographical dominance could be quantified? does it have people wasting their precious and beautiful gift of life on a job that is monotone and completely irrelevant for their own personal/spiritual/intellectual development? Does it have a monetary system which is the root cause of almost all "evil" on the planet which always does the complete opposite of it's initial promise?

A final thought: If an idea is "good", but gets hijacked by "bad" people in order to accomplish "bad" things clothed in "good", does that idea become forever tainted? If yes, how's the idea of democracy working for you? still believe it's a good idea?

[jimmer]

"Rapid population growth is not sustainable in the CURRENT paradigm..."

OK, Millan, start a trend and lead the way.

Keep us informed of your progress.

[Milan]

Posted by jimmer (here)
"Rapid population growth is not sustainable in the CURRENT paradigm..."

OK, Millan, start a trend and lead the way.

Keep us informed of your progress.

Well jimmer, even if I could I wouldn't want to do it alone. Creating such a "trend" would be a challenge to devise on many levels, beyond intellectual. You would actually need all kinds people from all kinds of places/classes/societies/experiences/cultures (etc) around the world. And to then somehow compress all that knowledge into an equation that equals a global sustainable and equal society that doesn't have to be homogeneous in order to act in unity and always in humanities best interest, without the expense of another human beings life (because a human beings life is valued above all). Now that's a challenge! You wanna help me figure it out?

I should also add, I don't always agree with what Fresco says or anyone else from the Venus Project for that matter, far from it actually. But what I like about them is that they're devoted. They're laying out blueprints for what they believe could be a better civilization for all, and which could be better then the current, in a manner which goes beyond the philosophical formulation of an utopia. An idea of an emergent society. To actually stand up and say: "money is outdated", in an upside-down world where the money you make equals your value as human being, and where people still believe a lifetime well spent is lifetime of chasing that "american dream" takes alot of guts! and especially to do it for as long (and with such enthusiasm) as Jaques Fresco has.. Sure, hes old, but hes a fiery little ****er and I like that!

[soulrebel]

You guys might want to listen to the first 30 minutes of this.

I tell you, unless you have a IQ of 200 and a great culture, it takes months to understand the resource based economy.
This thing is HARD to fully understand.

individual sublimation + cataclysmic event + eugenics + a pledge of allegiance to the environment + loving servitude + predictive programming + U.N. $ + dominant elites = ZEITGEIST

there is surely no eugenics, no servitude, no dominant elites and most of all no "pledge of allegiance" to the environment. I mean what is that? You don't "agree" with the environment? Can you do that, can you say I don't need shelter or food or clean water?

[Steven]

About overpopulation idea...

If we honestly work on our waste problems (which if you dig up a bit will makes you fall off your chair), if we honestly work on our consumption problems (mostly in westernized countries, but spreading in the south), if we honestly work on our over production problems (mostly linked to greed and national debts) we will wake up to a new acknowledgment; we are not too many of 7 billions human on Earth.

We dot not have an over population problem, we have a behavior problem. But hey, it is way easier to talk about reducing our number rather than to change our way of life, isn't it.

On one hand, the human population is the problem, so the solution is to reduce it without changing anything else in our life, economy and financial situation. On the other hand, the human way of life is the problem, so the solution is to change it. Which is the most ethical?

If you were Earth's Spirit, parent of all Life on Earth, what would be the logical choice? To eliminate or to educate? Don't you see it's a false problem brought from the Club of Rome to control our specie more than ever?

Don't forget that there are half of the world population (3 billions people) living like 3000 years ago with almost no impact on the planet. The big cities and the frenzy way of consuming and producing of the other half (locked in a diseased system no one of us chooses, but some really do not want to change it, addicted to it) creates the appearance of an over population problem.

"Create the global problem, bring up the global solution and maintain Life in servitude." We got not to embrace this deception as true.

If some people are trying to expose Zeitgeist, it's because it's becoming wide spread and it bothers some "addicted people" in high places. Not because of any other reason.

Namaste, Steven

[Erin]

The Zeitgeist films always lose me when they start trying to come up with ways to achieve these utopias. I like outside of the box thinking as much as anyone else, but I find their solutions to be somewhat lacking in foresight. For example: they completely ignore the variety of cultures within the human race. People can't be forced into a singular paradigm. The solution to our global problem is going to have to be as complex as we are.