Zeitgeist as a propaganda tool for a New World Order

Originally posted by Annee

Zeitgeist - - may not be perfect - - - but its the best thing I've seen so far.

Part of the reason that is the case, however, is because you dislike "wordy words."

Plato was moving in this direction thousands of years ago, but its such a big book, most people cannot bring themselves to actually read it. And, its a difficult book, because to read it well you have to follow the reasoning every single step of the way. Which means sometimes you need to read it a couple times.

Thats a lot of wordy words.

I watched the films. I like the theory quite a bit, but they are making a crucial error in pretending that "there is no human nature." Its not actually true. Natural selection HAS built into us a basic "nature" in addition to the cultural mores and traditions we adopt. And competition IS part of that. All life on Earth is competitive. Its a basic fact you cannot wish away.

However, their theory can be modified to account for competitiveness. Its not unworkable because they are making a very, very common philosophic mistake. That being, thinking that humans operate outside the rules of nature.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Annee

 

I wouldn't disagree with you, and I think that meeting basic human needs does need to be seen in a sense of it being an essential human right (ironically, something that religion supports far more broadly than most secular views do, at least within the community of believers.)

Yes - well you do make sure you inject religion in every discussion.

It seems to be your base for everything.

reply to post by Annee


Christians should actually support the Zeitgeist movement.

Their take on how the profit motive and scarcity corrupt everything they touch is actually completely in line with Jesus' teachings on the love of money being the root of all evil, and the rich man standing a snowballs chance in hell of making it to heaven.

If the Zeitgeist is setting itself up in opposition to religion it is foolish. It has a friend in Jesus. What the Church has made of Christianity is one thing, what Jesus designed it to be is another. I saw nothing inconsistent with the teachings of JESUS in that film.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Annee

 

Christians should actually support the Zeitgeist movement.

Their take on how the profit motive and scarcity corrupt everything they touch is actually completely in line with Jesus' teachings on the love of money being the root of all evil, and the rich man standing a snowballs chance in he

The real Christians or the man made ones?

Ever read Jesus' words "from above - instead of from below"? Meaning - - read them from the perspective of a Light Being. A benevolent race of off planet beings - - from above. Instead of from the perspective of Earth Humans.

Its an interesting perspective.

Yes - - I agree.

Originally posted by Annee

The real Christians or the man made ones?

Its sad you have to ask that question, but, you do. Lol. And I do mean "those who want to legitimately live as Jesus instructed" not just "those who think they can do whatever they want as long as they repent."

There is a lot of very interesting stuff in the teachings of Jesus. He even warns very clearly, that someone would come and distort his message, (Paul) and that the majority of people would end up on the broad path, and only a small fraction of people would end up on the narrow path of actually putting their faith in Jesus and following his instructions.

Thats the big divide between Paul and Jesus. Jesus says "you must DO this." And Paul says, "no, you dont Jesus did it all for you." Who you gonna trust? If you are a Christian, that should be obvious.

But in any event, the society envisioned by Zeitgeist is totally compatible with the teachings of Jesus. I always find it a shame that the "Church" has distorted the teachings of Jesus so thoroughly that people just reject what he says completely without investigation.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If the Zeitgeist is setting itself up in opposition to religion it is foolish. It has a friend in Jesus.

Not really. Christian selflessness arises from a love of and devotion to God. Totalitarianism strikes out against religion from the word "go", because in a battle for loyalty, the religious will inevitably side with God, rather than the state. Hence the coincidence of Cult of Personality, the substitutionary god, when the state just isn't enough.

Communism wasn't a refutation of religion, as Marx believed, but simply a new form of it.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Annee

The real Christians or the man made ones?

Its sad you have to ask that question, but, you do. Lol. And I do mean "those who want to legitimately live as Jesus instructed" not just "those who think they can do whatever they want as long as they repent."

Yes - it is.

Now remember I was raised Christian. And pretty much believed the general concept most of my life.

I state unequivocally - - there are definitely those (although few) who "truly walk in His footsteps".

I don't want to go too far off here -- but I do believe in the Watchers.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Wordy. Its not that so much as unnecessary words. Like people who talk just to hear themselves talk. If you can say something in 10 words - - why do you need 20. Many long posts circulate the point and present it several different ways - - because they are trying to convince you they are right. Its manipulation.

----------------------------------------------------------

Manuals or a detailed written subject - - - is not the same as presenting an opinion on a discussion board.

I really do like Zeitgeist. Gotta go.

Originally posted by adjensen

Not really. Christian selflessness arises from a love of and devotion to God.

Christian selflessness is largely a myth. Most Christians love money much more than they love God.

Originally posted by adjensen
Totalitarianism strikes out against religion from the word "go", because in a battle for loyalty, the religious will inevitably side with God, rather than the state.

Im not really seeing how or why you are getting a "totalitarian" state out of this, because it is explicitly not what they are proposing.

Secondly I refer you back to point one. Most Christians have NOT sided with God, at least not if you believe Jesus was his son and was here to legitimately spread his message. Because there is NO WAY IN HELL you can reconcile our profit driven society which is largely led by Christians, with the message of Jesus.

Now IF you are willing, as so many Christians are, to take what Paul came along and said later OVER what Jesus said, you can pretend that you are a Christian and live as we live. But if you have utter faith in Jesus, and reject anything that contradicts his message including the additions to the new Testament made by Paul, then we would be living more as the Zeitgeist movement proposes.

I do not see how anyone could argue that the love of money is not the basis not only for American society but ALL what we call civilized society. And in that, I agree with both the Zeitgeist movement AND Jesus that that is indeed, the root of all evil. Eliminate that, and everything else would fall into place much differently, and much more in line with what Jesus was advocating.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by adjensen

Not really. Christian selflessness arises from a love of and devotion to God.

Christian selflessness is largely a myth. Most Christians love money much more than they love God.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but "most" is not "all". I do not believe that most Christians follow the teachings of Christ, specifically, but I am one who tries (and fails, a lot.)

Originally posted by adjensen
Totalitarianism strikes out against religion from the word "go", because in a battle for loyalty, the religious will inevitably side with God, rather than the state.

Im not really seeing how or why you are getting a "totalitarian" state out of this, because it is explicitly not what they are proposing.

Because it isn't possible otherwise. Period. Review this post. You cannot migrate a worldwide economic system from Capitalism and private ownership to an economy (however you wish to label it) that has central ownership, save by fiat, and a violent fiat, at that. You said so yourself, essentially, here and justified mass murder by saying that such had been done in the past.

Because there is NO WAY IN HELL you can reconcile our profit driven society which is largely led by Christians, with the message of Jesus.

The message of Christ is a spiritual one, not an economic one, but where he teaches matters of wealth, he doesn't teach asceticism. The Parable of the Talents (found in Matthew 25 and Luke 19,) for example, doesn't teach that wealth is bad, it teaches that God gives us blessings, and that it is our responsibility to take those blessings and use them to benefit others.

I have skills that are in demand, and I can draw a good salary for them. Now, I can reject materialism, go sit on a rock somewhere and meditate, contributing little or nothing to society, or I can use the talents that I have to earn money, and return part of that blessing back to the world. I have opted for the second.

Remember, the passage is "the love of money is the root of all evil," though many conveniently ignore the first three words, and the message about the Rich Young Ruler is not "rich people won't get into heaven because they're rich", but rather "rich people, who put money above God, won't get into heaven."

I do not see how anyone could argue that the love of money is not the basis not only for American society but ALL what we call civilized society.

I would not disagree, and I believe it to be one of the fatal flaws that underlies society in general. But I am "in" society, but not "of" it, if you know what I mean, and a system that cannot be established without mass murder is not an appropriate alternative.

reply to post by adjensen


Because YOU CANT SEE A WAY, does not mean there isnt one.

You may be a very bright person. But the fact of the matter is we all have strengths and weaknesses intellectually, and there is nothing wrong with that. Lord knows I have mine. The trick is to know what they are, and to not overstep your ability.

You may think I am wrong, but if logic was one of your talents, you would recognize the truth in my first statement.

Secondly, you may think you are a true Christian, but a large part of your argument to date has revolved around your desire to maintain your wealth. Not justice for the worlds people, not Gods will, but "what about my stuff?"

Im not condemning you for that, but lets be realistic here about where you really stand on Jesus. As long as you have a lot to lose, the Zeitgeist system will look bad to you. You have bought into the idea of "not enough" and your fear of poverty will drive you to hoard what you have.

Even though Jesus said in the sermon on the mount;

Lay Up Treasures in Heaven
19 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Do Not Worry
25 "Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
27Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?
28"So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

You Cannot Serve God and Riches
24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Originally posted by adjensen

I would not disagree, and I believe it to be one of the fatal flaws that underlies society in general. But I am "in" society, but not "of" it, if you know what I mean, and a system that cannot be established without mass murder is not an appropriate alternative.

The system you advocate was set up by mass murder, it is maintained by mass murder. How can you deny that? Your addiction must be strong, for you to be such great denial.

The system we have now requires constant brutality and murder to perpetuate. Millions have suffered and died, and millions are or will be suffering and dying to keep things as they are for those who are benefiting from this system.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by adjensen

 

Because YOU CANT SEE A WAY, does not mean there isnt one.

No, but I am both a student of history and of psychology, so I see the inevitability of ruthless control in the name of justice. Perhaps you don't see it that way, but factual evidence is overwhelmingly in my favour, not yours.

Secondly, you may think you are a true Christian, but a large part of your argument to date has revolved around your desire to maintain your wealth. Not justice for the worlds people, not Gods will, but "what about my stuff?"

I am sorry, perhaps I have personified my argument a bit too much, but my own position isn't the crux of my argument, just a presentation of how the typical person with any means at all would act. In 1930s Ukraine, that often was a peasant with nothing more than a cow and a small amount of grain, so please don't solely associate "great wealth" with the reluctance to being assimilated.

No, my point is, and has always been, that this sort of system is untenable, a fact even more evident in the 21st Century than the 20th, as we've the past 100 years of example after example to point to -- the Soviet Union, the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Castro in Cuba. Tens of millions of fellow human beings slaughtered, often times for nothing more than the meager possessions that they needed to stay alive.

My concern is about the establishment of a ruthless NWO, based on premises that have been shown to be failures in the past. It failed then, it will fail again, because the reason for its failure (human nature) is not addressed by the bright boys behind the Venus Project.

"Oh, but this is different", says you. "This is to even things out, this is to make things fair, make things equitable, to make things sustainable." Similar, in a fashion, to statements of an earlier era:

The revolutionary epoch will create new forms of organization out of the inexhaustible resources of proletarian Socialism, new forms that will be equal to the greatness of the new tasks. To this work we will apply ourselves at once, amid the mad roaring of the machine-guns, the crashing of cathedrals, and the patriotic howling of the capitalist jackals. We will keep our clear minds amid this hellish death music, our undimmed vision. We feel ourselves to be the only creative force of the future. Already there are many of us, more than it may seem. Tomorrow there will be more of us than today. And the day after tomorrow, millions will rise up under ourbanner, millions who even now, sixty seven years after the Communist Manifesto, have nothing to lose but their chains.
-- Leon Trotsky, The War and the International, 1914

For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones.
-- Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845

The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists.
-- Lenin, The State and Revolution, 1917

I would also direct you to Josef Stalin's 1929 speech Concerning Questions of Agrarian Policy in the U.S.S.R., which lays out some of the rationale for the collectivization that would kill millions, intentionally, within ten years. Personally, I find alarming amounts of consistency between the claims of Stalin, and the claims of what a resource based, centrally managed economy, can do.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by adjensen

I would not disagree, and I believe it to be one of the fatal flaws that underlies society in general. But I am "in" society, but not "of" it, if you know what I mean, and a system that cannot be established without mass murder is not an appropriate alternative.

The system you advocate was set up by mass murder, it is maintained by mass murder. How can you deny that? Your addiction must be strong, for you to be such great denial.

And are you so amoral that the barbaric practices of the past somehow justify repeating them? We can do nothing about past transgressions, but we certainly can, and should, stave off those that are still in the future.

reply to post by adjensen


Of the past? If the brutality and slaughter for the sake of this system were over, you might convert me. Unfortunately, people are being slaughtered all the time for the sake of this system. And even more than those who are being murdered are those who are being exploited inhumanely short of death.

In a world where we have enough food to feed everyone, nearly one billion of us, (one sixth) are hungry, some near death. This is a distribution of resources problem. And I have a hard time feeling enormous sympathy for the one or two percent holding the majority of the worlds resources while people are suffering and dying because of that.

We killed how many people in Iraq for access for a few to their oil? How many more will we kill in the mid east before it is all over? How many people are we allowing to die from lack of health care here in the US? We have the resources. We are letting the greed of some make the majority of the worlds people suffer. Thats not what Jesus taught. At all.

You can argue all you want a fictional scenario in which the Zeitgeist is totalitarian. The fact of the matter is that the system we have NOW is trying to become a totalitarian NWO. Clearly, that is the way this system we are in is headed. Your argument that the Zeitgeist is doomed to become a totalitarian system is based on a logical fallacy called "argument to history."

Not only is "argument to history" a fallacy, but the entire idea that a resource based economy would follow the historical pattern you suggest is also a fallacy. Every other system has been based on profit. Even communism.

The "history" we have for resource based economies are probably closest to the hunter gatherer societies still in existence, and really they arent totalitarian nightmares like you predict.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
In a world where we have enough food to feed everyone, nearly one billion of us, (one sixth) are hungry, some near death. This is a distribution of resources problem. And I have a hard time feeling enormous sympathy for the one or two percent holding the majority of the worlds resources while people are suffering and dying because of that.

The injustice is met by acting justly, not by meeting terror with terror. Even beyond that you propose saving the world by either physically killing, or motivationally killing, those who are successful. While there are many people who have great wealth who didn't earn it, the vast majority (using the spectrum of everyone who owns a resource, from the peasant with the cow to Bill Gates) have it because they worked for it.

You can argue all you want a fictional scenario in which the Zeitgeist is totalitarian

Fine. Let's ignore history and pretend that it is not relevant. Explain to me how we get from where we are now to where all resources are under control of a central authority which is not totalitarian, and which does not require either the imposition of totalitarian control or the forced expropriation of assets from the people who currently own them.

Ball's in your court -- how will this happen?

The "history" we have for resource based economies are probably closest to the hunter gatherer societies still in existence, and really they arent totalitarian nightmares like you predict.

Please. You believe that citing the LEAST efficient economic model in history is somehow an argument? It might play well with the environmental, "commune with Mother Earth" types (and thus has some merit,) but it is a horrible idea for the modern world.

We're not Navaho or Sioux, living off the land. We're a centralized, industrialized society which relies on the efficient mass production and distribution of material goods.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Scarcer

 

Me: The sources used for Zeitgeist are not credible, here is evidence.
Zeitgeist fan: That's just an emotional response. I have no evidence to counter you, but you're wrong.

Yes, you have attempted to provide evidence to back up your argument, such as referring to Germany, as well as the anti-Christian argument presented in the first movie; using this as the basis to present your argument which is not such a conclusive as you are attempting to lead us to believe.

Furthermore, on one level your knowledge on The Zeitgeist Movement appears to be shallow, as you appear run with the Christianity argument, then patch in other aspects of Zeitgeist The Movie and the movement, such as past historical attempts at communism to justify your argument against the resource based economy, which is designed to utilize modern knowledge and utilize modern technology to fill in the large majority of social gaps that would be present in the absence of government and currency. Such thing's weren't possible some 50 odd years ago.

I haven't provided any sources to back up my arguments, since I'm concerned with your misinformation about the Venus Project and TZM rather than attempting to promote it. How Ever you can easily find answers at thezeitgeistmovement.com and thevenusproject.com, as well as youtube searches for talks by Jacque Fresco.

Now, as to your claims regarding the viability of a system promoted by the Venus Project, there are a large number of problems, but they all come down to one single point.

People.

For resources to be shared equitably across the globe, you need to have universal acceptance. That's problem one, and, as has been pointed out by a proponent in this thread, the only way to manage that is at the point of a gun. Using past barbarism to justify future barbarism, an abhorrent, uncivilized and indefensible thing, in my opinion. You want to grouse about the abuses of the Church, but defend this sort of wholesale slaughter?

Education > which modern society largely lacks, since the current system is designed to largely perpetuate corporate gain.

No Currency > Civilizations have functioned with out money or gold in the past. If you care for sources look it up. With out currency, and inteligent management of resources, there is little point in material greed.

On another note, how is it barbaric, abhorrent, and uncivilized? How are those justified terms against TVP? How is our current system any better? What would be the best system then?

Collectivisation in the Soviet Union, which is exactly what you are talking about here, spin aside, resulted in the famine of 1930s, across the nation. It particularly hit hard in the Ukraine, as documented here. If you didn't bother reading that, let me sum up... 14.5 million peasants (the people that the Bolsheviks were supposed to be saving from the Tsar) dead. That's roughly the current population of the state of Illinois. Starved, imprisoned, tortured and destroyed because they refused to go along with the state's appropriation of their property and produce.

This has no relation to TVP, again you are displaying your lack of understanding of how TVP would function. Automated Technology would replace the large majority of physical labor. For the few voids that require human intervention is assumed to be covered by volunteers, and it's justified to believe there will be many willing to spend several hours a week and make such tasks a regular hobby. On the flip side, there would be no enforcement, so who would be there to torture and abuse you?

However, if we move beyond that little conundrum, we run into the problem of productivity. People tend to be more productive if they are working for their own benefit, that's an "unfortunate" byproduct of evolution. Looking at Herzberg's Two Factor theory, there's an awful lot of "me" in there, because that's human nature. Studies have shown that, while there is an initial boost in many cases, working for the "common good" lags after time, particularly in instances where there is not a sense of universalism. Agricultural production in the Soviet Union declined precipitously both in the post revolution years following World War II, and the collectivization years of the 1930s.

My previous argument largely covers this portion.

Conversely, returning land to private ownership demonstrates that collectivization is a bad idea. From 1990-2005, the percentage of land in Russia that was in private hands went from two percent to twenty percent, but in the same time frame, the percentage of food produced by private hands went from 21% to 53%. Over half the food produced in Russia in 2005 came from 20% of the land, the 20% held privately. (source)

There cannot be ownership if there is no currency. Your home and property you occupied would essentially be 'borrowed' until you are finished with it. Farmland and utilities would remain public. The information you supplied has no relevance to TVP.

Finally, (though there are other compelling arguments, of course,) we have the problem of resource limitation. No matter how many robots, supercomputers or other panacean technological solutions one might toss out there, there is no getting around the fact that, whether there is enough to go around today, at some point in the future there will not be. At that point, how will the deficiency be addressed? Though it is, without question, inhumane, capitalism has an inherent feedback mechanism that manages it, but a directed economy will result in an arbitrary (if fair) or biased (more likely) decision on the part of whoever is running the Zeitgeist world.

I find it largely strange that in your arguments you ignore the aspect of production and regulation via computer networking and robotic labor, yet come back to mention them here; leading me to further question the coherency of your arguments.

"At that point, how will the deficiency be addressed?"
How would a deficiency be addressed in modern society? Lets take a look at oil... Corporate competition, hiked prices to drive down demand, and unjustified wars to seize these sources in foreign land. The hippocracy of arguing against TVP methods without address how dysfunctional our current system is leaves me a bit astounded.

The only way that this thing works is through the brutal collectivization of the world's resources and subsequent repression of dissenters and people who aren't producing sufficiently and/or worldwide brainwashing. Either way, it's the NWO, baby, but with dimwits like Peter Joseph and D.M. Murdock running the show.

No thanks.

"dimwits like Peter Joseph and D.M. Murdock running the show."

Sigh, can you please provide a compelling argument without resorting to offensive insults and directly attacking individuals? By no means am I offended, but it makes me further question your coherency and motives.

Furthermore, no one is-or would be running the show. Many recognize Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco to be leading the movement, but all they remain are individuals with a large spectrum of knowledge who are recognized on the public stage. The Zeitgeist Movement is entirely decentralized, how ever I'd go as far as to say that there ISN'T enough leadership durring the 'educational & transitional' periods, since it's against the movement's principles. A large portion of the existing movement is maintained and created by individual members, and not Joseph Peter or Jacque Fresco.

---

I also expect a student of psychology to provide a coherent argument, without the conceitedness to say 'but factual evidence is overwhelmingly in my favour, not yours.'

Additionally education does not equal wisdom.

Originally posted by adjensen
Explain to me how we get from where we are now to where all resources are under control of a central authority which is not totalitarian, and which does not require either the imposition of totalitarian control or the forced expropriation of assets from the people who currently own them.

What will LIKELY happen is this, this nightmare we have now, in which the few are brutalizing the many, will eventually grind to a halt. There are a ton of specific ways this can happen, based on economic collapse, environmental collapse, natural disaster, war, there are lots of ways the end can begin. But when it does, it will spiral into war and chaos and the rich will be hunted down and killed. Its what always happens, since you like argument to history so well. And after we run around like animals for a period of time, we will have a chance to rebuild, and choose. Just like democracy was chosen from the ashes of brutal aristocracy.

Now it doesnt NEED to be this way, but because of the greed of the money lovers, it is most likely it will work this way.

We could decide to change without a bullet being fired. People could decide they loved each other more than their possessions, and we could fragment into groups of manageable size (like small states) and begin to work out the mechanics of the new system, with the nation states meeting at various points in the process to coordinate.

But mind you, it will be the money lovers and their unwillingness to part with their wealth that spin us into war, just like they spin us into war now in their pursuit of more wealth. YOU want to blame the death on the people who want the sharing society, but in truth, it will be the same people who used brutality to gain the wealth, that use brutality to maintain it.

And mind you, I am no psychic. This is my guess in terms of probability, and the wisdom of people like Plato much wiser than I who have also concluded that a new system will not be adopted until this one fails so profoundly that humanity suffers. We could choose to live righteously, but we likely wont.

Originally posted by adjensen
Please. You believe that citing the LEAST efficient economic model in history is somehow an argument? It might play well with the environmental, "commune with Mother Earth" types (and thus has some merit,) but it is a horrible idea for the modern world.

What you arguing is beside the point. The point was, you were trying to say that a system based on resources rather than profit would end in totalitarianism because thats how communism ended. And MY point was, communism was still a system based on profit. It was a system in which the resources and profits were to be divided equally, but it was still a profit driven system.

Hunter gatherer societies actually werent that inefficient, (they provided food for themselves MUCH more efficiently than we do in terms of hours worked) but my point was that they were not profit driven, and they did not end in totalitarianism.

My point was NOT that we should adopt that now. Clearly, our population burden is too great for that to be feasible at the moment, and, we enjoy technology. Which makes the Zeitgeist model more attractive.

Originally posted by Scarcer

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Scarcer

 

Me: The sources used for Zeitgeist are not credible, here is evidence.
Zeitgeist fan: That's just an emotional response. I have no evidence to counter you, but you're wrong.

Yes, you have attempted to provide evidence to back up your argument, such as referring to Germany, as well as the anti-Christian argument presented in the first movie; using this as the basis to present your argument which is not such a conclusive as you are attempting to lead us to believe.

That is not an answer. If you have credible sources for Zeitgeist Part One, please present them. If said sources are D.M. Murdock, then your sources are actually Graves and Massey, which are not credible sources. If you wish to validate those sources, please provide the proof that they are correct.

My point in refuting (tangentially, it's not the brunt of my post) Part One is to demonstrate both the intellectual dishonesty of the filmmaker, and the intent to not convince Christians of their fallacy, but to ingratiate themselves with those who think dimly of the religion. The success of that is demonstrated in some of the responses to this thread.

historical attempts at communism to justify your argument against the resource based economy, which is designed to utilize modern knowledge and utilize modern technology to fill in the large majority of social gaps that would be present in the absence of government and currency. Such thing's weren't possible some 50 odd years ago.

Ah, yes. The magical "technology" gap filler. Name a problem that we're ignoring it, and you'll find legions who declare "technology will solve that for us." There are no humanoid robots. AI is in its infancy. The ability to "mine" a city and convert it to bubble domes and hydroponic gardens does not exist.

But don't worry, Venus Project adherent -- technology will save us.

On another note, how is it barbaric, abhorrent, and uncivilized? How are those justified terms against TVP? How is our current system any better? What would be the best system then?

Like the other fellow, you are welcome to outline how we peacefully transition from the current economy and national sovereignty to the Zeitgeist world.

Automated Technology would replace the large majority of physical labor.

How? Magic?

Here's a state of the art robot, folding pieces of cloth. Only took it an hour and a half to do it.

For the few voids that require human intervention is assumed to be covered by volunteers, and it's justified to believe there will be many willing to spend several hours a week and make such tasks a regular hobby.

What's a "void", and how does a society rely on people "just feeling like doing it" for something that needs human interaction? What happens if no one shows up one day? Guess that depends on what a "void" is.

On the flip side, there would be no enforcement, so who would be there to torture and abuse you?

How is there no enforcement? If no one ever does anything and it all falls apart, does the system just shrug its shoulders and die?

However, if we move beyond that little conundrum, we run into the problem of productivity.

My previous argument largely covers this portion.

What, the cloth folding robot?

There cannot be ownership if there is no currency. Your home and property you occupied would essentially be 'borrowed' until you are finished with it.

What happens if I come home from a day of robot supervision and someone has decided that they like my house better than theirs, tossed my stuff to the curb and moved in? What if I decide that I don't want to live in my current bubble dome and move to one on the beach? What happens if everyone decides that they want to do that?

Farmland and utilities would remain public. The information you supplied has no relevance to TVP.

What I demonstrated, and you ignored, is that state owned and managed property is INHERENTLY less efficient than privately owned and managed property. That is not irrelevant, apart from those who disregard facts that they don't agree with.

I find it largely strange that in your arguments you ignore the aspect of production and regulation via computer networking and robotic labor, yet come back to mention them here; leading me to further question the coherency of your arguments.

I ignore them because they are nonsense, the "missing varible" that is plugged in to make things seem plausible, even though none of it exists.

Although flippancy doesn't seem to be appreciated around here these days, I got a chuckle out of this person's observations: Prisonplanet. To be specific, this bit:

Let us say that he really is talking about a world where you can truly just go in a store, take everything and it will magically reappear for the next customer. I guess that is one possibility in the future world and thus is a valid interpretation

Observations about magic seem to be a recurrent theme with your critics, don't they?

Finally, you might want to have a read of this essay: Automated Opposition: The Technocratic Undercurrent of Zeitgeist: Addendum.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
But when it does, it will spiral into war and chaos and the rich will be hunted down and killed. Its what always happens, since you like argument to history so well.

No, that is not generally how it happens. The rich (depending on your definition of the word, I suppose) sometimes get their just desserts, but usually not -- they're too cagy and entrenched. Take any revolution you like and compare the percentage of elite/nobility/rich who die, compared to the "unwashed masses", and you'll see that. In the French Revolution, for example, estimates are over a million dead, but less than 20,000 by guillotine, the proscribed end for the elite (along with counter-revolutionaries and political opponents.)

YOU want to blame the death on the people who want the sharing society, but in truth, it will be the same people who used brutality to gain the wealth, that use brutality to maintain it.

Then why has it not been that way in the past? Did the Ukrainian peasant in 1932 really offend society by trying to keep his cow?

The point was, you were trying to say that a system based on resources rather than profit would end in totalitarianism because thats how communism ended. And MY point was, communism was still a system based on profit. It was a system in which the resources and profits were to be divided equally, but it was still a profit driven system.

Actually, no it wasn't. Not at first. Study the early years of the Soviet Union -- the capitalistic aspects of economic reform didn't find their way in until the New Economic Policy of 1921, which was a system called, colloquially, "State Capitalism". Its purpose, however, was to try and save the country from the devastation of the first trial of a centralized economy, which didn't have that "privatization" piece.

That first run was an abject failure, and it wasn't until the NEP was implemented that the economy began to revive, which it continued to do until the collectivization of the 1930s set it back again.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Scarcer

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Scarcer

 

Me: The sources used for Zeitgeist are not credible, here is evidence.
Zeitgeist fan: That's just an emotional response. I have no evidence to counter you, but you're wrong.

Yes, you have attempted to provide evidence to back up your argument, such as referring to Germany, as well as the anti-Christian argument presented in the first movie; using this as the basis to present your argument which is not such a conclusive as you are attempting to lead us to believe.

That is not an answer. If you have credible sources for Zeitgeist Part One, please present them. If said sources are D.M. Murdock, then your sources are actually Graves and Massey, which are not credible sources. If you wish to validate those sources, please provide the proof that they are correct.

Thankyou, for pointing out those statements are in fact NOT an answer but rather an analysis of your argument.

Ah, yes. The magical "technology" gap filler. Name a problem that we're ignoring it, and you'll find legions who declare "technology will solve that for us." There are no humanoid robots. AI is in its infancy. The ability to "mine" a city and convert it to bubble domes and hydroponic gardens does not exist.

The technology doesn't exist because our current world hasn't called for those specific technologies to be developed for the specific applications. And by AI, are you referring to artificial human behavior? Or are you referring to the ability of computers to organize information, numbers and equations? Which such is already beyond the human capacity to do so. Did I mention humanoid cybernetic robots no. You are uneducated on the matter regarding TVP, meanwhile you are complaining about me presenting sources, how ever I'm finding your argument non-compelling.

But don't worry, Venus Project adherent -- technology will save us.

Again, lets keep this mature if you are to be taken seriously.

On another note, how is it barbaric, abhorrent, and uncivilized? How are those justified terms against TVP? How is our current system any better? What would be the best system then?

Like the other fellow, you are welcome to outline how we peacefully transition from the current economy and national sovereignty to the Zeitgeist world.

Let me remind you that you began this forum topic with the intent to convince us with your argument, so you are obligated to explain your position while engaged in the argument.

Answer: WE DON'T, or otherwise it's unlikely to be peaceful while the current system breaks apart.

You would be aware of this if you had actually spent your time researching TVP and TZM.

I've read enough from you, and I conclude my argument that your knowledge on the matter you are trying to discuss is severely limited by your apparent disinterest to understand TZM and TVP and adamant decision that the movement and the project as well as the founders are evil. Your assumptions are broad, leading to much misinformation and what in my opinion is essentially, poor judgement.

I've lost interest in arguing with you. Goodbye.