Your opinion on the Zeitgeist Movement?

This.

It's internet hype. If you hear anyone talking about it IRL you have just received a big clue: they are a moron.

Euro Liberal Chic, OMG I believe it because it's like totally popular with European Liberals!

 

Omg....

Wikipedia calls Zeitgeist a 'grass roots' movement and the tea party was "nationally-coordinated" ...


In short, that was the opposite of reality. Peter Joseph is a New World Order, New Age shill who is leading people straight in to the New World Order as he appears to lead them out of it. He has many accomplices such as David Ike and Jordon Maxwell.

Zeitgeist is very "New Age".

See Keith Truth on youtube. He exposes Josph pretty well.

Capitalism is not failing, it is being undermined and phased out in favor of crony capitalism and socialism.

The people in charge have grossly mismanaged the worlds economies creating inflationary bubbles and the subsequent crashes.

They have pilfered the worlds wealth in exchange for promises of an easy life with global social justice.

 

I think it is, to put it succinctly, a bunch of bullshit

 

if america would stop trying to completely controll things at a national level and allow the states to police themselves, like the founding fathers had intended we would have a lot less problems. stupidity plays a huge role in all this

 

haha i wish someone would actually speak like this to me in person so i could scoop slam them.

zeitgeist has its ups and its downs, you know, plenty of radical opinion and plenty of stuff to actually think about. one thing that nobody gives peter joseph credit for is the fact that he's one of the only movement-type documentary makers out there that not only exposes what he feels needs to be exposed, but then actually lays out a plan to accomplish goals. whereas guys like michael moore, etc. sort of just shit all over everything and everyone and leave you feeling a bit hopeless. peter joseph's zeitgeist movement is also non-profit. he gives his documentaries away for free online, and sells the dvds at cost. his lectures (like z-day) also charge only enough to cover costs.

as far as needing empirical evidence, i've always found it pretty funny that christians' typical idea of empirical evidence includes pretty much just the bible and its various forms. for example you hear guys like keith truth cherry-pick and viscously attack sources like gerald massey and back it up by saying things like "well according to the bible.." one of the largest criticisms of the bible is and has always been that it contains large amounts of unsourced and/or secondhand relays of information, which, we as readers are just supposed to take a translator's word for. but now that someone tries to refute it centuries later, you know, let's start talking about sourcing and historians, etc.

my point here is that the first zeitgeist was never made with the premonition that it would be the phenomenon it is today. i feel like it was more supposed to be a collaboration of his ideas and opinions with his attempt at sourcing them in whatever way you can source that type of information in today's world. and since then, peter joseph's work has gotten much more focused and directed. i definitely don't believe everything the dude has to say, and i always look into sources of things that i do, especially when they make a little bit more sense than other bullshit people believe just because it's part of the status quo.

 

And when people say things like this, like they're so important, I know they're not worth wasting my time over

I don't debate with self-important children

 

yeah a change of ideas is needed for this world to stay alive, but there will never be any one solution, you can't just expect to find the solution and bam those problems are gone forever. it will take the entire future course of human history to truely understand.

 

well thanks for saving me a few laughs in that case man.

 

I'm afraid to say I think its a crock..
The zeitgeist movie is full of flaws etc and I went to a lecture on the zeitgeist movement by some 95 year old man (or around that age) and it was full of self-important college students and fucking crazys.

I met a guy outside saying how he had government computer chips in his head etc etc That whooole thing. Not that he's a fair reflection on the movement itself but its just paranoia mongering

 

Hi all, have joined the site to post on this discussion.

Clearly the Zeitgeist Movement has riled up a lot of discussion & passionate views. I'm sorry to say that most of the movement's detractors I've encountered have little to no measurable understanding what the movement is about or rather than consider this information for what it is, they instead hear an idea, project their own biases onto it, then react strongly, usually harshly & negatively (without providing any solutions otherwise). Such as the posts here.

So let's try to clear the air. The Zeitgeist Movement advocates the humane application of Science and Technology to social design and decision-making. That's pretty much it.

It recognizes that the world's resources are the common heritage of all people, without exception. That through the application of a systems approach to our social challenges, it provides a solution (of many possible) to render money irrelevant, as well eliminate the need for most jobs that generate nothing useful in our society; including police, lawyers, bankers, advertisers, etc. The purpose for this is so that all human beings are free to live their lives in peace.

It is about shifting our priorities from fighting each other like children, to living together as one organism with the understanding that there is no such thing as Utopia, there is only the environment we choose to generate.

That said, please share with me what is bullshit about that? Or how does that imply a connection to NWO? By what evidence are you drawing your conclusions?

Time and time again, when we examine the answers to the above questions (as I hope to do with you all) it will illustrate the claim in the 1st paragraph above.

Detractors, here's your chance to show that you're not just projecting wild, misguided speculations based on little to no understanding of the information available.

 

@Thchill
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution, I respect your position, though do have some questions

Am not here to try to change your mind, only offer information that you may have not yet fully considered. What you do with it, is up to you.

What is human nature? Find that most things people ascribe to "human nature" is actually & provably just "human behavior".

To say, we humans are extraordinarily adaptive creatures. If you put us in an environment that encourages us to act terrible, we do, and provably if you put us in an environment that encourages us to act kindly & wonderful, we also do! Which environment do you think we've lived in the most so far?

True, but this 'behavior' is demonstratively the result of our environment; that is to say the environment has not adequately met our needs and thus our selfish behavior is largely the result of it. Related to below...

The key aspect of relevance to our past societies is that they have typically been based on systems of scarcity & differential advantage. Scarcity enforced on the majority by a minority who believe there isn't enough for all, and so choose to be aggressive to get their share first. It is what led to the creation of monarchy, and our current so-called "democratic" form of money-slavery.

In a resource-based-economy that the Zeitgeist Movement advocates, scarcity of goods & functional needs is eliminated; largely through automation technology, much of which already exists today.

So how do humans behave when there is abundance of the things they need and desire? Are they violent, selfish & self-serving? Provably, no, they are not. Recommend reading up on recent human behavior studies; no need to speculate on opinions about human nature, it's all right there.

Would agree with this if somehow the Zeitgeist Movement ideas were somehow "turned on" overnight, but no one is suggesting that; that's folly of course.

You say "free for all destruction zone" but then let's take a look at why we fight.

Simply put, we fight over resources, we harm each other over resources. Think of 90% of purposed war & crime... it is based on some form of resource scarcity, whether oil, money, food, love, etc.

We hurt each other because we've been conditioned to believe there isn't enough for everyone. But the fact is, this is simply untrue but our social systems do not yet reflect this reality.

So isn't it time our social systems reflected that fact? And if not now, then when? When should we say "enough is enough", put away things that harm us, and work towards realizing our full potential?

Think also you may be neglecting the social consciousness aspects of the movement. It's not about forcing a new system on others and expecting people to get in line, that obviously doesn't work for very long.

Rather, it's about educating & empowering each other to the root causes that generate our undesirable behavior, working together to remove the 'advantages' to said harmful behavior, and thus empower ourselves to generate different results.

To say, in a resource-based-economy, there simply would be no advantage to such destructive behavior that you suppose. And as all behavioral scientists know, if there is no advantage, then the behavior dies.

This is true of most things people ascribe to human "nature"... it's just behavior misunderstood

(sorry for the length, but these things sometimes take more than a short blurb to express)

 

So no follow up then?

Well, I tried

 

Im bumping this. No one followed up because you were right.

 

I'll respond to your post at a psychological stand point because that is my strength, however when you reply to my post, I'd like you to clarify to me what a resource-based-economy exactly is, because I'm not sure what you are referencing. I've seen zeitgeist the movie, and I know how our economy is based around a central bank and it's impossible to run something on debt, but I wasn't aware of this "solution" So if you could explain that part to me it would be helpful.

Anyways onto the psychological view.

You state that human nature is really human behaviour, which is true, as nature is bound to behaviour. We are animals and animals have behaviour patterns. The major flaw with your arguement that humans are not evil or violent when they have everything they need is the fact that it is impossible for us all to have everything we need.

You act as if there are enough resources in the world for everyone, in fact you even state it. However this is not the case at all. We are running out of water, and with that we are running out of food. Never mind things like oil, when you can't drink or eat that is when the human behaviour pattern gets erratic and sets out for survival.

I want you to explain to me how we have enough resources in the world to give over 6 billion people in the world everything they need and desire. Without that, you begin to see corruption. The human mind is constantly thinking of new ways to try and acquire what it wants. That's why human behaviour is set towards selfish goals. Your supposed system that would somehow destroy human needs and desires requires an extremely large amount of resources, and the fact is the earth is overpopulated and we don't have enough resources to feed everyones desires.