IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
"zeitgeist" May Become The Movement Of Our Age, Everyone needs to consider what is being presented

Rating 5 V
 
Wingmaster05
post Jan 29 2009, 04:22 PM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 568
Joined: 23-January 07
From: where the lorax sleeps
Member No.: 487



Zeitgeist is a documentary and video blog creation of Peter Joseph. In case you aren't familiar with the conspiratorial underground of the 21st century, Zeitgeist is an immensely popular movie. It calls for a social revolution against the System of greed and scarcity, with all its various permutations through the fields of agriculture, religion, politics, energy and money. Millions upon millions of people around the globe have seen the film. Google search "who is peter joseph", and you are one of 17.2 million people who have asked the same question. This fact causes one to really consider the potential of this movement, and the more you realize that those 17 million people are not only viewers of the film, but intelligent people who wanted to investigate such a curious and revolutionary cause. 17 million people, who may be partially awake and listening to this information. We need to consider what is being presented here, because if worthwhile, this group may be the catalyst of change we have desired in the political system, in all things pertaining to 911, and all other related systems with it.


I'm going to start this thread with a important thought, that "There is No They". Briefly, this means that while we have technically began to identify the persons in power that orchistrated and helped activate this disastrous action, we have not focused our attention solely on the cause of the event in the first place. This Cause may have it's very source, it's essence, in greed, scarcity and possibly a few other generally ill social behaviors. Therefore, what can you say has come from your study of 911 and the Grand Conspiracy? So far, all I can say is that i found out partial truths here and there, in various fields and branches of the system, and merely began pointing my finger in defiance. But since i live in the system, and i am fully human like everyone else with all my insecurities and faults of personal character, that i am just as subject to corruption as "they" are. And once you consider that any human could succumb to those levels of existence, it's no longer about "they" but about "us".


Here is something recently written by Peter Joseph himself. This will give you another angle to see how this guy thinks and to help answer the question that we searched into google not a moment ago.

In this post, Peter explains his stance after the "interview debacle" between Alex Jones and himself. He also cuts to the core of his philosophy.


QUOTE
Friends,

I get a lot of emails as to why I do not bring up notions such as the "New World Order", "Illuminati", "Zionism", "Secret Societies" and other popular occult/conspiracy concepts which are very topical in this day and age. While I, of course, acknowledge the "men behind the curtain" and the various levels of manipulation and corruption of the ruling class, it must be understood that I do not differentiate between the high level, elitist criminal- and the commonplace, petty criminal.

They are both different extremes of the same sickness. On one side of the spectrum, you have the wealthy elite who maintain a compulsive addiction to power, control and material wealth. This is due to a constant, endless need for more and more self-preservation, which is derived from the psychological impressions of "Scarcity".
On the other side you have poor people, living clearly within scarcity, who are without options for survival, and are forced into corrupt behavior in order to stay alive.

Sadly, the idea of "corruption" has become highly stylized today, and Hollywood and Tv constantly reinforce the excitement of this so called 'criminal' behavior and this perpetuates the sickness to new levels.

Now, for many, the above distinctions are likely too general. Some would say things like "what about the columbine massacre?... they were middle class kids from decent families"

Aberrant, seemingly irrational, violent behavior comes from a low self-sufficiency. This is the result of an up bringing which does not intelligently cater to the needs of a growing mind, nor giving him or her the tools to understand the world around them. Mental Distortion comes from Social Distortion and if we ever want to see a world without the constant manipulative, violent abuses, we have to do what has never been done in any real way:

Examine the social system and the bio-social pressures it perpetuates inherently.

Now, I'm not going to go into all of the elements required to fully explain how sick our society is and how
the religious systems and profit systems have twisted the general human mind into a perverse, selfish, divisive mentality.

However, what I will say is that to be "Normal" in our world, actually means "Screwed up".

Now, coming back to my original point- I want everyone to understand that putting the blame on the "globalists" or the "new world order" crowd is a cop-out. These people are manifestations of the system and even if you imprisoned all the elite at the top, a new set of corrupt people would take their place overnight. This means that it isnt "groups" we should be concerned with... it is the environment.

There is No "They"

It's time we grow out of the "us against them" mentality. This isn't to say we shouldn't be activists against the constant social corruption. We have to do that. But, we must stop this nonsense that we are "at war" with sometime. This is an illusion. Martin Luther King Jr. had it right. The most powerful weapon you can have is unconditional love.


Now, we must think about what is truly important for Change. Is researching and understanding the nuances of the Bavarian Illuminati and all its symbols going to help bring change to the world?

No, it isn't.

While social history might be important to understand, we must get our priorities straight. The fact is, "exposing the criminal elite" along with things like 9/11 is only half the game. True change will come not from an angry group of abused people. It will come from a positive awareness of what humanity 'could be', if we all wake up and realize our possibilities. Once the species understands that there IS enough go around, that we are One, and that our integrity is only as good as the integrity of the rest of the planet...then a new focus will emerge, and all the "secret societies" and the like will lose all power. All the "New World Order" is is a hard up group of damaged human beings who think world domination is a rewarding goal. They are no different that the ignorent frat-boys of Skull and Bones and any other childish group elitism. They are just sad, and it's time we stop all the pontification about their infamous "power".

The power elite are only as powerful as we allow them to be.

-Peter Joseph

ps: I have also been getting emails asking why I do not respond to Alex Jones's attacks on me and the films.

Very simply, Alex isn't worth the time. He is just another victim of culture...a damaged mentality who thinks we are at "war" with something. Sadly, he is very dogmatic in his beliefs, and while I think Alex is a decent person overall, his "us and them" worldview is more dangerous than helpful. I feel he perpetuates the same mentality of the people he claims to fight.




I am in agreement with Joseph that the system of today is a system involving all of us, and therefore all of us must be presently aware of what causes such a system to exist (namely, but not limited to; ignorance, fear, and lack of autonomy, or self reliant behavior). His example here seems undeniably true to me:

QUOTE
Now, coming back to my original point- I want everyone to understand that putting the blame on the "globalists" or the "new world order" crowd is a cop-out. These people are manifestations of the system and even if you imprisoned all the elite at the top, a new set of corrupt people would take their place overnight. This means that it isnt "groups" we should be concerned with... it is the environment.


Does anybody disagree with this concept? I would be interested to hear counter arguments, because I am at a loss for a good one right now.

This post has been edited by Wingmaster05: Jan 29 2009, 04:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wingmaster05
post Jan 29 2009, 04:50 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 568
Joined: 23-January 07
From: where the lorax sleeps
Member No.: 487



QUOTE
While social history might be important to understand, we must get our priorities straight. The fact is, "exposing the criminal elite" along with things like 9/11 is only half the game. True change will come not from an angry group of abused people. It will come from a positive awareness of what humanity 'could be', if we all wake up and realize our possibilities. Once the species understands that there IS enough go around, that we are One, and that our integrity is only as good as the integrity of the rest of the planet...then a new focus will emerge, and all the "secret societies" and the like will lose all power. All the "New World Order" is is a hard up group of damaged human beings who think world domination is a rewarding goal. They are no different that the ignorent frat-boys of Skull and Bones and any other childish group elitism. They are just sad, and it's time we stop all the pontification about their infamous "power".

The power elite are only as powerful as we allow them to be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 29 2009, 07:39 PM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Zeitgeist?
thumbdown.gif spam.gif

BEWARE!


Some of the sources of Zeitgeist - Acharya S, interconnected heavily with theosofists resp. masons around Aquarian Age and Lucis Trust (Lucifer Trust), thus leading to dark NGO's of UN and above all also to satanists and New Age, which is also clearly identifiable in many parts of booth the movies, so having to do with Scotish Rite Masons generally, so might have a link to Illuminati. ph34r.gif

Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum is in my opinion (and I'm not alone) a satanist-communist-atheist one world govt. propaganda, staged as a "non-profit movie" abusing the concern of people about the truth of 9/11 and the financial crisis, denouncing christianity with astrological nonsenses and with absolutely no clues to either 9/11 or financial problems of the present, building the whole utopic discourse on nonsenses e.g. on the scientificaly long ago refuted postulate that the antisocial behavior has no inherited factors (which anyway never was believed by a majority of the scientific community in psychology and now is already thorougly disproven) and generally mixing truth from other movies with blatant lies and dangerous ideologies to demoralize western society.

I've after a bit of research no doubt the Zeitgeist is largely even by MSM promoted dangerous propaganda, even by the medias, they usually censor simmilar "conspiracy" stuff.

As not ideal but at least partial antidotes I would maybe take ENDGAME or David Rivera.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wingmaster05
post Jan 29 2009, 09:04 PM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 568
Joined: 23-January 07
From: where the lorax sleeps
Member No.: 487



alright, this is already going where i didn't want it to go. My previous questions would have spurned quarrels, not dicussions.

Tume, what is your opinion of the specific advice of zeitgeist addendum?

1) Expose the Fed Cartel


2) Boycott Mainsteam media and support independent media
-Support the internet..."it's our savior right now"


3) Boycott the military


4) Boycott the energy companies
-become self reliant for energy needs


5) Reject the political system (and it's infiltration by the corporations)




I don't see how this is communistic in nature. He is actually asking us to become completely independent, autonomous and self reliant.

This post has been edited by Wingmaster05: Jan 30 2009, 12:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Jan 30 2009, 02:56 AM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



I must say I fully agree with Peter Joseph assessments of the problems humanity is facing in addendum, but I was a bit disappointed that he did not offer any real solutions, then again Zeitgeist as Peter has said in the past is only supposed to be a basis for further reflection and discussion... we in the end by working together will find our way out of this labyrinth. I do find it more troubling that some people do not approve of such a procedure, that any discussion outside a narrow and rigid Ideology is considered dangerous, I personally do not believe that Jesus or Capitalism will save us, on the contrary, so I guess that would make me the enemy rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Jan 30 2009, 03:46 AM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



QUOTE (Wingmaster05 @ Jan 29 2009, 08:22 PM) *
"Now, coming back to my original point- I want everyone to understand that putting the blame on the "globalists" or the "new world order" crowd is a cop-out. These people are manifestations of the system and even if you imprisoned all the elite at the top, a new set of corrupt people would take their place overnight. This means that it isnt "groups" we should be concerned with... it is the environment."



Does anybody disagree with this concept? I would be interested to hear counter arguments, because I am at a loss for a good one right now.


This is not even a concept, it's obviously true, it's not a matter of morality, good or evil, we are the product of our environment to a great extent, and more precisely the economic structure we live in, "it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace" (easy rider), however how do we make the transition to something more democratic without a political struggle ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 30 2009, 04:44 AM
Post #7


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



In general I think PJ is on the right track: The problem is systemic and WE are the system. What that means is WE HAVE TO CHANGE.

But change how?

I've been poking at this for a long time now. Most people don't get it.

First thing you have to do is accurately describe the world you live in.

Second thing you have to do is articulate the world you WANT to live in.

Third thing you have to do is recognize that the world you DO live in is a reflection of yourself.

Fourth thing you have to do is recognize that to have the world you WANT, you have to change yourself in such a way that it becomes a reflection of YOU.

I've been critical of AJ and many of the "patriot movement" because a lot of their rhetoric posits a situation that is damn near hopeless. They're always harping about how HORRIBLE our situation is. Now, it is true, it is a fu*ked up mess -- and for some people life on Earth is a living hell. But the reality isn't so bleak as all that. Humanity has been engaged in a struggle to redefine itself for thousands of years. NOW we're at a particularly interesting stage of the game. For the first time EVER we have the awareness that we are ONE family -- a human family -- on ONE planet -- Earth -- and that our destiny can not be allowed to be determined by any one group of people. It needs to be a CONSCIOUS PROGRESSION that includes ALL people everywhere. That recognizes the various societies and traditions, their roots and histories and cultures and religions, and celebrates this diversity. For thousands of years we've been led to see ourselves as "members" of this or that race or class or nation or religion AS OPPOSED TO everybody else. But it is possible to BE a member of any of those groups and yet NOT see everyone else as a threat or as an enemy but as simply "an other". As Rev. Write would say, it isn't a matter of "better" or "worse," "It's just different"

We have a very difficult time grasping how absolutely, fundamentally UNIQUE our period in history is. There has NEVER been a time like this before, ever. Yes it is a very dangerous time and we're going to be "lucky" to get through this without totally f*cking ourselves up. But getting through it is a survival DEMAND -- and not just for one group or another -- but for the whole -- and that is part of what is unique about this situation.

The future will not be like the past. We are creating the future every moment of our lives.

Pay attention. Learn HOW to pay attention. It isn't just a "keep your eye on the ball" thing any more. It is, but it is more than that. The BALL is now something INSIDE you. The image of the world that you see through your eyes is actually a construct of your brain. If you can create a conscious relationship between that construct, yourself, and the outer world by BECOMING MORE CONSCIOUS a transformation that is not solely directed by accident may begin to reveal itself. But I keep telling everyone over and over again -- reading this sh*t will only take you so far. Ultimately you have to stop feeding the reading habit and begin to actually engage with your life, your own consciousness, your body, and all of the world in which you live in a new more direct way. Pay attention, not only with your mind, but with everything that you are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 30 2009, 03:30 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (Wingmaster05 @ Jan 28 2009, 12:04 AM) *
alright, this is already going where i didn't want it to go. My previous questions would have spurned quarrels, not dicussions.

Tume, what is your opinion of the specific advice of zeitgeist addendum?

1) Expose the Fed Cartel
2) Boycott Mainsteam media and support independent media
-Support the internet..."it's our savior right now"
3) Boycott the military
4) Boycott the energy companies
-become self reliant for energy needs
5) Reject the political system (and it's infiltration by the corporations)

I don't see how this is communistic in nature. He is actually asking us to become completely independent, autonomous and self reliant.

Sorry, I was so direct, because the Zeitgeist is so well mixed propaganda from truth and lies that I couldn't help myself, even many of the truthers buy into it.
Maybe you don't see the "communistic" in Zeitgeist, maybe you just don't know what does it mean - I come from a former communist country and I can see it pretty clearly in Zeitgeist - it reminds me really intimately the communist propaganda. So I'm warning. That's all I can do.

to the point 1. - FED was already exposed by many before Zeitgeist. And in fact the Zeitgeist movies brings no new information about - to me it looks like the part about FED is just a clone of Money as Debt, Moneymasters etc. - the Zeitgeist just "parasites" on work of others.

to the point 2. it is in my opinion false direction, because in fact the internet is not as free as the Zeitgeist authors try to pretend - for example today I've sent an article from Ch. Baldwin about NWO to my friend - which is at the time in Thailand - the page (at DailyPaul) was unaccessible there. ...why I don't wonder... it happened so many times before, that something is not "accessible" on the internet... Internet can be quite easily "regulated", or directly censored (I used to be an independent ISP - czfree.net, so I know how easy is to filter it, and you know what? Why I stopped doing ISP? Because they introduced a law here (in whole the EU), that I must allow police, to put their "hw" - spy and filtering hw! - on my master uplinks...) ...and so would be quite unreasonable for future to rely just on internet which can be "shaped" by big ISP's (or directly by secret services, international companies as Google, Wiki....) - which owe most of it - anytime. We instead must try to get our opinions in MSM - because we are in fact unable to abolish MSM - there will be always some MSM.

to the point 3.
- why boycott military? You know what? There is a proverb here: "Why not to be a pacifist? Because the others aren't." Is it realy realistic that the nuclear military can be possibly boycotted?... rolleyes.gif If the good people will not join military, then just the bad crazy bastards will remain there... and be sure there are loads of people so desperate in this world, that they will gladly become mercenaries - just to feed their family - this bunch of desperates then will be commanded by psychopaths...

to the point 4. - it's certainly reasonable to have local energy sources - to not rely entirely on the system or on other states.
For example now there was a big crisis in EU with gas - because the Russians closed the taps with their gas to EU and around - for 2 weeks (because Ukraine - the pipelines to EU go through Ukraine - was hugely stealing the gas intended for EU not paying to Russians for it at all) and whole states (as e.g. Slovakia) were really afraid what they'll do after their storage tanks are empty - it's winter here. Before the EU denied Slovakia to run their nuclear powerplants and forced them to make gas powerplants instead - and suddenly the Slovaks would be fu*ked just in 2 weeks if the Czechs would not lend them their gas from their big storages...
What I would recommend is not to boycott energy companies, but to support their R&D of the 4th generation of nuclear powerplants (IFR - stopped by Clinton&Gore in 1994 on the pressure from the oil/coal lobby and/or LFTR) and make this technology available to the all states as commercial - to provide them with safe&secure and above all independent energy source capable to cover the energy needs. - If you only go to look how much energy we need, then you'll clearly see there is no "alternative" energy source - which can cover the needs of energy after peak coal in 2040 - but nuclear. If we don't support the 4th generation of nuclear (as the Russia, China, Korea, Japan, India do - they aren't crazy "environmentalists"), and build the nuclear powerplants, then after 2040 the western civilization will cease to exist or be at least vitaly dependent on the named states which will effectively dictate them what to do.

Just for illustrating the political stupidity: If Carter wouldn't effectively stop all nuclear powerplants development in US - on the presure of the former peace activists against Vietnam - which after the war ended have nothing to do, so they runned amuck on protesting against nuclear energy - then by 2000 the US would produce most of its energy from nuclear (as eg. France) and have no reason for any oil wars in Middle East. Moreover the IFR and LFTR research would be already finished and US would sell it everywhere and have a big profit from it, there would be no crisis, and BTW the US would realy promote independence and thus democracy (democracy can work just on the national level - as we see in EU - where it already doesn't work) where they would provide the technology, keeping their status of the literally superpower - providing all with independent, cheap a secure&safe energy source, which can last at least for thousands of years, source, which has much less environment issues than the coal/oil energetics (is estimated that just the coal energetics just in US - by its pollution produced - directly kills at least 25 000 people a year; and the radioactive pollution - due to ashes from naturally radioactive coal - is estimated being at least 100 times! higher than if the same energy would be produced by nuclear powerplants of 3rd generation - not speaking about the 4th...).

I'm not much keen on Obama, nor the "global warming" scum, but I don't see things black&white and sometimes I agree - James Hansen, Obama's advisor for energetics:
"...It is essential that dogmatic 'environmentalists', opposed to all nuclear power, not be allowed to delay the R&D on 4th generation nuclear power. Thus it is desirable to avoid appointing to key energy positions persons with a history of opposition to nuclear power development. Of course, deployment of nuclear power is an option, and some countries or regions may prefer to rely entirely on other energy sources, but opponents of nuclear power should not be allowed to deny that option to everyone..."

Yes, some technologies can save the day, but definitely not the solar one promoted by almost occult way by Zeitgeist - not in near future.

But there is one thing which should be boycotted in energetics - biofuels - because already huge areas of the tropical forests were destroyed in South America and South Asia just because of this BIG NONSENSE saving no CO2 emisions, nor money, nor environment, subsidized hugely by US and EU - this must be stopped immediately! - because a ) the tropical forests are the 1st lung of this planet, because b ) the needed agrotoxins (especially pesticides and herbicides) - after the tropical forests there were wiped - for the biofuels production will be splashed into oceans, killing on the end the fytoplankton - which is 2nd lung of this planet... Not speaking about the rise of the food prices, starvation and famine in 3rd world resulting already now from this - I would even think that all politicians and "environmentalists" they promote this crazy disaster of epic proportions should be arrested and tryied for mass murder.

to the point 5. - what political system we should reject? How? It's utopia ! It's impossible to reject the system we have by peaceful means - and the violent takeover I'm afraid would just end all in chaos, wars - either civil wars or large conflict. Just the innocent again would suffer and again the corrupted bastards will win the day. What we need is just to reestablish the social contract between elites and normal people - especially to realy establish real free market (what we have is just a kangaroo market governed by and for purposes of corporations) - what I would recommend is to strip corporations from right to figure in legal cases with the rights of "person" - this would be itself enough. Corporations in itself aren't something "good" or "bad", they just must not be provided with rights of people - because then they quickly become corrupt.
What promotes Zeitgeist is just an blatant utopia - There would be always elites - we don't need to fight elites, we just need to get better conditions of normal people with them. To reconcile with elites. (You know, not just ordinary people are afraid of elites, also elites fear the masses - when they see what a bunch of sheeps it is...)
There would be always money - because it is good invention for the free market (so we must reform the monetary system, not destroy it, not make revolution but intead go to the roots - eg. in US reform it back as the Constitution says - "The Congress shal have right to coin money..." (not FED)).
There would be always a religious faith (we must not and can't abolish it - it's impossible - not speaking about that it maintains the "basal morality" in society - but instead promote its freedom - to effectively excomunicate the sinners). (Especially protestant christianity should be cleaned from fanatics and occultists especially zionists, not to be abolished - the basic message of Jesus is - "not to be slaves", not to be responsible to anybody but God - this must not be abolished!).
There would be always crime (the people aren't born "tabula rasa", some of them are born bad, we must lump it, try to help them, but secure ourselves and our children against the crime - especially the violent one which forms psychopaths in following generations).
There would be always possesion of things, the point is not to abolish the private property, we just must keep it in reasonable range, not allow few to steal and then own everything.

This world should be saved, not destroyed, put back in tracks of humanity and cleaned from corruption not corrupted to the communism which doesn't work simply because the people are not born and never would be born equal. We need our if possible not much corrupted governements in our countries - not one world government - simply because the power corrupts - and the absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jan 30 2009, 04:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Jan 30 2009, 04:03 PM
Post #9


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Thank you for your absolutely brilliant analysis, tumetuestumefaisdubien. handsdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The artful dodge...
post Jan 30 2009, 04:15 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 68
Joined: 27-April 08
From: UK
Member No.: 3,237



Communism might be an interesting system if anyone had actually ever tried it.

The problem is that no one has. It was never intended to be a tyrannical system and has now merely become a pejorative term for a particular brand of fascism. the other problem is that it can be defined in such a number of ways. Much in the way that the word 'socialism' means so many different things to so many different people. For example, many in Europe laugh at the US idea of what socialism means as if it would predicate the end of the world when it is simply an idea.

Zeitgeist is information. Some you may accept, some you may not... but that comes down (often but not always) to opinion.

The issue is that we're up to our collective arses in alligators right now so we should at least give a hearing to anyone who can remember where the instructions are for draining the swamp.

The whole problem is our own position as parts of the system. We cling to paradigms that have not served us well - such as the left / right one; the religion / spirituality one and many, many others. A radical solution requires us, at some point, to make a leap of faith and try to make this world what it could be rather than living with what it is.

Then again.... I could be very wrong....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 30 2009, 05:49 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (The artful dodger @ Jan 28 2009, 07:15 PM) *
Communism might be an interesting system if anyone had actually ever tried it.
The problem is that no one has.

But yes, they tryied it in whole the "eastern bloc" I had the bad luck to be born in - but it was a disaster killing milions when the power was "redistributing" - from one corrupt "aristocrats" to other corrupt "communists" - communism is nonsense, the society always will have the classes (the main utopia of communism is the "society without classes" - which is so attractive for mases not because it is possible or better, but because it is based: on greed - the poor simply buy into it mostly because it promises them to strip the rich from their wealth). Most of the people always want more - more money, more power... Everybody gets corrupted by wealth - either he calls himself an "aristocrat" or "communist". The power has this immanent, inherent. I would even say the "socialists" are usually more corrupted than "aristocrats".
QUOTE
It was never intended to be a tyrannical system and has now merely become a pejorative term for a particular brand of fascism.

But yes, it was intended to be tyranical (throw off the illusions!)- if one looks for the real intentions the Communist Internacionala was founded for, then one sees it clearly - just read the David Rivera I linked above...
QUOTE
the other problem is that it can be defined in such a number of ways. Much in the way that the word 'socialism' means so many different things to so many different people. For example, many in Europe laugh at the US idea of what socialism means as if it would predicate the end of the world when it is simply an idea.

Some form of "socialism" is everywhere - even that "corporativism" of american style is a form of socialism - because it destroys the real capitalism of the really free market.
QUOTE
Zeitgeist is information. Some you may accept, some you may not... but that comes down (often but not always) to opinion.

Yeah, there is just something, which is true in Zeitgeist - but what is there true was exposed many times before. What Zeitgeist adds to it are lies and dangerous ideologies of atheism, the "holly grail" of technologies and society without classes based on nonsenses as "the people are inherently good and that it is the system which makes them bad".
The propaganda is always mix of truth and lies - the truth there is just a decoy - if there would be nothing true, the people would not buy into the blatant lies (the 1st part of Zeitgeist I and the 2nd half of Zeitgeist II), they are just associated with the true (exposing the financial system and 9/11 - exposed anyway many times before - Zeitgeist brings no new information which wouldn't be exposed before - some parts are looking almost even just as stollen from other movies)
QUOTE
The issue is that we're up to our collective arses in alligators right now so we should at least give a hearing to anyone who can remember where the instructions are for draining the swamp.

But almiost all "instructions" in Zeitgeist, when considered soberly, are just blatantly utopic nonsenses.
QUOTE
The whole problem is our own position as parts of the system. We cling to paradigms that have not served us well - such as the left / right one

But this paradigm is inherent to any society - always there is an "elite" and "plebs" and their antagonistic interests (they've anyway also common interests) - the point is not to destroy this paradigm, but to maintain the equilibrium - between them and their interests. No society will ever be "democratic", when there the "left" and "right" will have not equal chances to promote their case.
I would even say that the problem of today is not the paradigm left/right, but paradoxicly, that it bacame too "mixed" - nobody no more can clearly distinguish them - especially in US nobody sees clearly what's the fu*k difference between Republican and Democratic parties - it almost looks like it is one red&blue masonic party - either one or another wins the election, but the policy in favor of corporations not people is still there and the changes are just cosmetic ones - to deceive the public again.
QUOTE
; the religion / spirituality

another duality paradigm inherent to all societies - always there is something which belongs to the moral organization of society - the church - and something related to the esthetic freedom (spiritual) of individual - spirituality is something individual, religion (morality) is something social. There is always some prevailing morality in the society - organized by church according to the prevailing faith, but there should be also a freedom in spiritual (esthetic - what one sees to be good, ethical, nice...) for an individual. This two things again should be maintained in equilibrium, because if moralism prevails then the individual becomes less free, if the "spiritualism" prevails over morality, then the society tends to chaos and anarchy of depletion of the common values, in consequence there is again more of "bad" and the real freedom again is supressed.
QUOTE
A radical solution requires us, at some point, to make a leap of faith

this "big leap" - literally (so was called the "cultural revolution" in China which killed hundreds of millions) is nonsense at social level - Yes on individual level you can go to eg. Theravada meditation retreat (as I eg. did), use elaborate spiritual techniques (As I used the satipatthana-vipassana) and move your ass in the other individual paradigms through the individual spiritual progress through individual spiritual experience. But on social level - if you want at the same time maintain the freedom of choice - it doesn't work.
QUOTE
and try to make this world what it could be rather than living with what it is.

This is possible only individually - even to change yourself is very difficult and costs you much of the spiritual power - there is no miraculous way to force whole society to be "better" at once, even the "christian revolution" against slavery lasts for milenias and costed loads of blood. Everybody who tryies this will end with not much success, or worse, would be creating a big disaster.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jan 30 2009, 06:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The artful dodge...
post Jan 31 2009, 12:58 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 68
Joined: 27-April 08
From: UK
Member No.: 3,237



First an apology to Wingmaster. I realise that this wasn't how you hoped for this thread to pan out which I think is a huge shame as it is a topic that deserves much, much more than a row about semantics. Unfortunately such things seem almost inevitable whenever a topic is raised that challenges people's belief systems. Personally I think (and before you all shout me down I did just say I think - not know) that until people can extract themselves from the controlling influences that they confuse with either fact or reality then the battle is likely a difficult one.

I sincerely hope that this thread can live up to its promise and I shall certainly do my bit to help it along but after receiving such a kicking for expressing a few - relatively minor - opinions which themselves were qualified, I hope you will forgive me for a small bit of self defence.

Tume, I am sorry for causing you such offence; that was never my intention.

I think you have confused the label 'communism' with what happened in the Eastern bloc and China. Because that's all we're talking about here. Just because someone labels a goat as a duck does not make it a duck. It remains a goat. The label is not the definition and many political or social movements have been misnamed by selective interpretation. That people claim and cling to power thanks to a self proclaimed label of 'liberal', 'conservative', 'fascist', or 'communist' is a fact of life but no representation of their true position.

After all, if we're honest, most people append labels to themselves that rarely represent the truth. Most people if asked will consider themselves 'good' not 'bad' simply through self editing of their life experience where the reality is probably a bit of both.

That this occurs on a political scale is hardly surprising.

The idea that society will always have classes is an interesting one and begs the simple question, 'why?' The only reason we accept such stratification in our lives is because those at the top of this idea also possess the resources to ensure that, that is what you think. This is not an expression of a natural order but a manipulation of it to suit particular ends.

The idea of the primacy of the 'free market' as the only possible model is also quite bizarre. After all, is it not the exact expression of capitalism that has led us to a situation where we may well be fighting each other for food in the not too distant future. I'm not sure that I wish to belong to a system where the 'free market' is any sort of model. It simply doesn't have a track record of any kind that deserves praise. However it is the great driver of the inequality that you seem to see as necessary.

Surely the fact that Zeitgeist mentions things that have already been discussed elsewhere is hardly a reason to condemn it. P4T has - and continues to - rehash ideas that have been expressed previously and I hardly think that is a reason for Rob to pack it all in and go home. Some ideas need to be disseminated as widely as possible and although ideas about the Fed etc may be familiar to you that doesn't mean they are automatically familiar to every viewer.

Since when was utopia nonsense? If we don't strive to improve the world we live in then for what purpose do we exist? The concept of utopia is something to aim for otherwise we are nothing.

I am not sure how to deal with your idea that seems to demand a church within the state. I don't agree but will defend your right to your beliefs with every breath in my body. On that I can say no more.

I mention a 'leap of faith' not in connection with China or any other historical disaster but simply because it seems self evident that the status quo is not a place where humanity can exist much longer. If you want the system to remain as it is then you are entitled to that belief but it is that system that gave us 9/11 and I want no part in its continuation.

Wingmaster - I think (correct me if I'm wrong) - is merely suggesting that change is needed and Zeitgeist may offer a starting point for a discussion of the possibilities and challenges that face all of us. In which case I think this thread could be a thing of true value. That may mean - in time - throwing off the crippling ideologies that hold so many people back. In which case..... so be it. thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 31 2009, 03:51 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (The artful dodger @ Jan 29 2009, 03:58 PM) *
Tume, I am sorry for causing you such offence; that was never my intention.

Nothing to appologize for, dodger, I haven't taken it as an offence. This is just discussion about Zeitgeist movies - which I'm maybe over average critical about, so I make a polemic with the statements defending it. In my opinion the Zeitgeist movies are a good "material" for a polemic about what direction to take out of the sh*t we are in, or what direction not to take. - That was also the reason, why I helped with the translation of booth the Zeitgeist movies into Czech. The same I did with the Alex Jones Endgame - to have two, say "extreme" points of view together and thus a broader perspective. I myself however tend to take a very conservative attitude towards all the ideology in Zeitgeist, maybe because I have intimate experience with the so called "communism" (we rather call it "real socialism" in Eastern Europe), and the Zeitgeist reminds me intimately the ways how the propaganda of those selfdeclared "communists" was made - with all that resentiment making against church and religious faith generally, against the elite, against the capitalism of free market, against the classes in society (destructing simmilarily as in the corporate capitalism the so called "middle class")... And because I know something about the history of the Communist Internacionala, who was behind the curtain when it was found (that even the Marx wrote to Engels: "I was there just as a dull personage on the platform") I don't think anything good about the real communistic movement - which always wanted to make their revolution through bloody putsch and terror - long before the Lenin and Trotsky proposed their open terrorism.
QUOTE
I think you have confused the label 'communism' with what happened in the Eastern bloc and China. Because that's all we're talking about here. Just because someone labels a goat as a duck does not make it a duck. It remains a goat. The label is not the definition and many political or social movements have been misnamed by selective interpretation. That people claim and cling to power thanks to a self proclaimed label of 'liberal', 'conservative', 'fascist', or 'communist' is a fact of life but no representation of their true position.

We joke here about it like this: There were in 70's and 80's just on Stanford and Berkeley certainly more communists in hearts than in whole eastern bloc... rolleyes.gif Anyway, this is not about labels, but about the actual content of that bottles - and in this the ideologies in Zeitgeist intimately remind that of communism - even rather more than just the fabian socialism of New Age fashion. Yeah ok, they don't openly appeal to a bloody revolution to achieve their ends. But the ends are so stupidly utopic that anyway not much of the people would really think something like that what's proposed in Zeitgeist can actually be ever achieved. It's just an empty kitsch of irrealistic nonsenses as if it would be from a "B" Sci-fi from 60's, talking about scientific approach, but founding the discourse on utterly non-scientific premises as that of the "tabula rasa".
QUOTE
After all, if we're honest, most people append labels to themselves that rarely represent the truth. Most people if asked will consider themselves 'good' not 'bad' simply through self editing of their life experience where the reality is probably a bit of both.
That this occurs on a political scale is hardly surprising.

Yeah, you can find sometimes "honest" communists, although usualy they're powerthirsty corrupted (I mean especially in mind) bastards. And yes, they usually all consider themselves as good and progress bringing (with machiavelist justification of their atrocities that the end justifies the means.)
QUOTE
The idea that society will always have classes is an interesting one and begs the simple question, 'why?' The only reason we accept such stratification in our lives is because those at the top of this idea also possess the resources to ensure that, that is what you think. This is not an expression of a natural order but a manipulation of it to suit particular ends.

Why? You answered yourself. You just haven't specified the "particular ends". The particular ends are power and wealth. There are always some people who want to be powerful and wealthy and they have also the means to accomplish it. I would even say, there is rather just a minority of the people who actually don't want to be wealthy and powerful. For some of the people who want be or stay wealthy and powerful is even good to promote nonsenses as Zeitgeist - to rot the minds of as much as possible good people - to ease off the potential competitors... laughing1.gif
QUOTE
The idea of the primacy of the 'free market' as the only possible model is also quite bizarre. After all, is it not the exact expression of capitalism that has led us to a situation where we may well be fighting each other for food in the not too distant future. I'm not sure that I wish to belong to a system where the 'free market' is any sort of model. It simply doesn't have a track record of any kind that deserves praise. However it is the great driver of the inequality that you seem to see as necessary.

In the corporativist capitalism there is not much anything which could be called a truly free market. If there would be something like that, we would rather not be where we are - that the public even pays trilions to bail-outs of the failed banks, that whole continental superstates hugely subsidize nonsensical manmade disasters of epic proportions as biofuels, that the corrupt governments wage their imperial wars for sources they would never need if they just would let the market to create cheap and safe energy from nuclear... Again - our problem is not the presence of the free market, but it's absence.
QUOTE
Surely the fact that Zeitgeist mentions things that have already been discussed elsewhere is hardly a reason to condemn it. P4T has - and continues to - rehash ideas that have been expressed previously and I hardly think that is a reason for Rob to pack it all in and go home. Some ideas need to be disseminated as widely as possible and although ideas about the Fed etc may be familiar to you that doesn't mean they are automatically familiar to every viewer.

I'm not condemning Zeitgest for rehashing of the true, but for mixing it (taken almost without change from elsewhere) with lies and utter nonsenses. Anyway, on the internet quite doesn't matter, if one watches Zeitgeist or just puts another title in the search engine and watches say Money as debt or LCFC or ZERO. Yeah if one wants the true from it have mixed with the astrological nonsenses, antireligious propaganda, utopical socialism of selftaught "scientists" and with dreaming about the trips for the dinner with superfast MagLevs from LA to NY ended with the simmilarily halucinogenic "spiritual" outbursts, then one would recommend Zeitgeist, otherwise there is no need to watch Zeitgeist other than learn something about the techniques of the New Age propaganda revival.
QUOTE
Since when was utopia nonsense? If we don't strive to improve the world we live in then for what purpose do we exist? The concept of utopia is something to aim for otherwise we are nothing.

"Utopia - 2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform." (The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
I feel quite well not aiming to utopias, even better criticizing those who want not just dream about an ideal state but to practically aim to this impractical schemes with potential disastrous sidefects on the way to principially unachievable.
QUOTE
I am not sure how to deal with your idea that seems to demand a church within the state. I don't agree but will defend your right to your beliefs with every breath in my body. On that I can say no more.

There is always a church. (In US I've heard there are 37 000 denominations?) I'm not demanding that it should be a part of the state, it's more institution of society than of state, rather I would not mix this two things, I don't much like clerical regimes. Especially zionists (Second Christ comming fanatics) and mahdi comming fanatics are potentially quite dangerous, so I would rather avoid to give them standing armies with the nuclear warheads in the storages. rolleyes.gif
QUOTE
I mention a 'leap of faith' not in connection with China or any other historical disaster but simply because it seems self evident that the status quo is not a place where humanity can exist much longer. If you want the system to remain as it is then you are entitled to that belief but it is that system that gave us 9/11 and I want no part in its continuation.

What we differ about is not that there is no need to make changes, we differ in scale of it. I think, the big problems stem from details - as for example that the corporations are given with at least the same rights in legal case as the people, or that the banks are allowed to legally issue false money and even take interest from debts - where in fact only debtors back the money with a real value after the abolition of Bretton Woods (this corruptions of system I find being the mother and father of all corruption) - not that the society is not uniform mass of equal sheeps on one wave of utopical spiritualism. I would rather prefer a very diversified society with diversified means to help poorest people. And also to maintain the large wealthy middle class, to support the private enterprising, local political power, real state independence - which in our age means to especially have means of independent energy, food and industry raw materials sources, and also means for feasible national defence - this means the real independence, not that nice words of politicians about political soverignity.
One point I still didn't mention from Zeitgeist and it is the clear call for abolition of work. This I find especially scandalous from the mouth of subsidized jerks as Fresco. As an investor I would never give them any contract or job anymore - we would see if they would change their corrupted mind...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The artful dodge...
post Jan 31 2009, 04:54 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 68
Joined: 27-April 08
From: UK
Member No.: 3,237



Tume,

thanks for the reply. Your remarks, as always, are though provoking and of considerable interest.

Are you perhaps afraid that Zeitgeist posits the idea - as expressed by Marx - that communism would be a counter revolutionary theory and would only reach fruition after a second or counter revolution to overthrow the perceived imperfections of the original? If so, I'm not sure that you need to worry too much.

I think our prime area of disagreement is actually quite simple to say but very difficult to explain. I feel that you are clinging to a set of premises that have - or are about to - become outdated. The areas of current policy which you posit are to me (and I accept this is a personal view) nothing more than the results of generations of control designed to render us incapable of analysing them in a rational and reasoned way. It is not unusual for people to cling to things they know are harmful because they offer familiarity and a perverse comfort. The devil you know, after all, is often said to be better than the one you don't know. (And there is a perfect example of the sort of ingrained thinking we pick up along the way).

In the west we were always told that capitalism was the only system in the world that worked as you, no doubt, were being equally propagandised to believe that communism was the only system that worked. The people who lurked behind the iron curtain, or so we were told, were all idealogically dangerous and definitely not to be trusted. The fact that we are having this dialogue and that I bear you no ill will surely gives the lie to that idea. If that can be agreed then we surely have to accept that what we are told may not be true. You originate from a communist country and yet you seem to have a much greater faith in capitalism or the free market than I do (or in fact, more faith than almost anyone that I know). Perhaps a longer experience of any dogma will ultimately reveal more flaws.

I object to the labelling of such things as 'communism' or 'capitalism' simply because I have yet to meet two people who interpret those terms exactly the same. Words are in many ways a tyranny that can, perhaps, be illustrated by this idea - If we both carry different interpretations of individual words (and certainly any which carry an emotional charge, such as those defining such things as religion or politics) then how many mis-interpretations are possible within a post such as this? If there are 100 ways of defining 'communism' and you begin to multiply that by the number of emotive words in any such post then you quickly create an immense set of possibilities for conflict or misunderstanding.

Personally I found many things in Zeitgeist that jarred my consciousness. However, I am always willing to take a step back and assess it for what it is. Sometimes that means testing the information against previous dogma. The test for me is simple: Is this information that is of particular value or is it not. If it is then I delve deeper and explore the possibilities I find. Even if it isn't then I will do it the courtesy of some further exploration.

My main awareness is not of 'what I know to be true' but of what 'I don't know'. We are all products of an educational system of some sort that, by definition, is a version of reality filtered by a third person - at best - and often filtered through many, many people before being delivered as some sort of self evident truth. People throughout history have been persecuted for positing ideas that we now take for granted. I believe that the free market will ultimately be proven to be a primitive and ludicrous way for supposedly civilised people to consider as a basis for society.

I have also watched Endgame and many, many other titles which I have found of great interest. Zeitgeist trumps them in one way and that is that it offers some idea of a path out of the dark forest rather than just telling me how scared I need to be as I huddle with the rest of the sheep under a pile of leaves hoping no one will notice me. That is not life.

"Utopia - 2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform. (The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)" Sadly, I would suggest once again that this is not your definition but that of the society in which we live and needs to be treated as simply another piece of information. As an aside - what is definition 1 of Utopia? (I just noticed that your quote appears to be definition 2) Once again we seem to be into the interpretation of words salute.gif

Ultimately information is all that we are discussing here. In itself it is neutral and always demands a certain amount of respect until it can be practically dismissed for empirical reasons.

I would not recommend anyone to accept Zeitgeist or anything else at face value. But I truly respect and understand Wingmaster's attempt to use it as a jumping off point for further discussion, debate and possibly - one day - consensus. I just hope that it can be done in the spirit of what is possible rather than only on the basis of what we think we know.

We've certainly kicked it off.... one way or another.

Thanks for your time. blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The artful dodge...
post Jan 31 2009, 04:55 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 68
Joined: 27-April 08
From: UK
Member No.: 3,237



Wingmaster, could we have your take on where you'd like this to go. I would really like to be part of any ongoing thread on this issue.

Thanks handsdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 31 2009, 06:35 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



FWIW, one of the staff could split this into 2 different threads (pro & con-Zeitgeist, maybe dunno.gif ). I'd think Religion and/or Debate are the logical forums (but I don't think anyone needs to hear my personal take on religion(s) again anytime soon whistle.gif ).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Jan 31 2009, 06:52 PM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



I was hoping this thread would evolve into a discussion into how we could give more substance to the second part of addendum which is lacking in my opinion.

Instead we are told to beware of any such reflexions, to have blind faith, like religious beliefs in a system that has never existed, "real capitalism", whatever that is. The world should passively wait for this miracle to happen while it's resources are plundered and it's people exploited. The Elites would approve no doubt, rejoice and be glad, for your reward is in heaven.

Talking about Utopian dream, how about this "hand's off" for profit system where everybody is out to make a buck, no contradiction there... wacko.gif as if concentration of power and wealth, competition for never ending profits no matter the consequences is irrelevant..

Libertarian ideology originally brought and promoted by the same interests who brought you the FED is a fig leaf this system hides behind, without the Banksters and the wars of aggression, capitalism would be long gone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 31 2009, 07:26 PM
Post #18





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



I've put dodger quotes to italic, because the board is not able to handle so many quotes>
Are you perhaps afraid that Zeitgeist posits the idea - as expressed by Marx - that communism would be a counter revolutionary theory and would only reach fruition after a second or counter revolution to overthrow the perceived imperfections of the original? If so, I'm not sure that you need to worry too much.

I don't much fear the Marx nonsenses, in fact I find the Zeitgeist be just a reiteration of the New Age nonsenses in a new dress using the actual problems of the 9/11 scum and the banking scum for raise interest in the promoted almost same dangerous resentiments as the real communism did - to confuse the values of the good people to make them aiming rather to utopias then to solve real problems of the real society. With all the honesty I must refute this.

I think our prime area of disagreement is actually quite simple to say but very difficult to explain. I feel that you are clinging to a set of premises that have - or are about to - become outdated. The areas of current policy which you posit are to me (and I accept this is a personal view) nothing more than the results of generations of control designed to render us incapable of analysing them in a rational and reasoned way. It is not unusual for people to cling to things they know are harmful because they offer familiarity and a perverse comfort. The devil you know, after all, is often said to be better than the one you don't know. (And there is a perfect example of the sort of ingrained thinking we pick up along the way).

I insist the basic principles I base my discourse on are nothing near to "oudated". I just work with real, known and proven possible, not imaginary, unknown and impossible. And not at all with premises they're already proven false - thus outdated - as the Zeitgeist does.

In the west we were always told that capitalism was the only system in the world that worked as you, no doubt, were being equally propagandised to believe that communism was the only system that worked.

It was maybe propagandized that the communism is the best, but I would bet, that there were more people in the west who actually believed it than in whole the communist bloc created after the IIWW when US and the other "winners" left the central and eastern Europe in the hands of Stalin (maybe they just thought the communism is better than the fascism their banks and govts. supported). yes1.gif

The people who lurked behind the iron curtain, or so we were told, were all idealogically dangerous and definitely not to be trusted.

They haven't been trusted, because everybody who had the direct experience have immediately seen they preach water and drink wine. Only the leftist intelectuals in the west believed in communism - because they haven't any direct experience with what it actualy does to the society - especially that propaganda full of lies very simmilar to that in the Zeitgeist. They feeded whole generations with crap like that.

The fact that we are having this dialogue and that I bear you no ill will surely gives the lie to that idea. If that can be agreed then we surely have to accept that what we are told may not be true.

Surely including the Zeitgeist. yes1.gif

You originate from a communist country and yet you seem to have a much greater faith in capitalism or the free market than I do (or in fact, more faith than almost anyone that I know). Perhaps a longer experience of any dogma will ultimately reveal more flaws.

I see quite well the "flaws of the capitalism of the free market" - the absence of really free market. yes1.gif Seriously, this is the main illusion of the west - that they live in "capitalism of the free market" - what in fact they live in is the corporativism (the term was initially promoted by Musollini for fascism) mixed with overregulation steming from socialist ideas applied indiscriminately and often without sense for socicial reality. The main probelm of the west I see in subsidizing of nonsenses and overregulating of vitaly needed.

I object to the labelling of such things as 'communism' or 'capitalism' simply because I have yet to meet two people who interpret those terms exactly the same. Words are in many ways a tyranny that can, perhaps, be illustrated by this idea - If we both carry different interpretations of individual words (and certainly any which carry an emotional charge, such as those defining such things as religion or politics) then how many mis-interpretations are possible within a post such as this? If there are 100 ways of defining 'communism' and you begin to multiply that by the number of emotive words in any such post then you quickly create an immense set of possibilities for conflict or misunderstanding.

I think this is overrelativized. I think that what's the "capitalism" or what's the communism is quite well defined. And I again must say, that what promotes the Zeitgeist intimately reminds that what was promoted by real communist propaganda. I don't need to compare any 100's of notions how the people comprehend "communism", because I see the striking simmilarity between the ideologies promoted in Zeitgeist and the ideologies they triyed (unsuccessfully) to programm in my head in the communist schools.

Personally I found many things in Zeitgeist that jarred my consciousness. However, I am always willing to take a step back and assess it for what it is. Sometimes that means testing the information against previous dogma. The test for me is simple: Is this information that is of particular value or is it not. If it is then I delve deeper and explore the possibilities I find. Even if it isn't then I will do it the courtesy of some further exploration.

If I test the "scientific" ideologies in Zeitgeist against the real science I find even the very basic presumptions be utterly false. If I test it against the dogmas promoted by communists I find striking simmilarity. And so I'm done with it. I don't need then to speculate about it further, for me it is long ago finished chapter of book I'd like to never be opened again. We can discuss it, but for me it is just an example of a sectar propaganda. We can discuss the future of the world, but the Zeitgeist will be for me just a deterring example of an attempt to use real problems for a promotion of utter nonsenses.

My main awareness is not of 'what I know to be true' but of what 'I don't know'. We are all products of an educational system of some sort that, by definition, is a version of reality filtered by a third person - at best - and often filtered through many, many people before being delivered as some sort of self evident truth.

Then is good to learn something about the history of the Illuminati and their infiltration of mason lodges, about satanism and its connections to New Age, what it has to do with history of communism and its propaganda etc... I'm sure it is not taught on average schools.

People throughout history have been persecuted for positing ideas that we now take for granted. I believe that the free market will ultimately be proven to be a primitive and ludicrous way for supposedly civilised people to consider as a basis for society.

First would be good to establish a free market - then we can proove something about.

I have also watched Endgame and many, many other titles which I have found of great interest. Zeitgeist trumps them in one way and that is that it offers some idea of a path out of the dark forest rather than just telling me how scared I need to be as I huddle with the rest of the sheep under a pile of leaves hoping no one will notice me. That is not life.

But I think this "way out" the Zeitgeist offers is utterly false. - There would be no society without classes, no abolition of churches and religious faith, no abolition of elites, no abolition of money, no abolition of work, no abolition of politics, no abolition of greed, no abolition of evil, no abolition of power...

"Utopia - 2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform. (The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)" Sadly, I would suggest once again that this is not your definition but that of the society in which we live and needs to be treated as simply another piece of information. As an aside - what is definition 1 of Utopia? (I just noticed that your quote appears to be definition 2)

yeah i left out the definition 1.
a ) An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.
b ) A work of fiction describing a utopia.

Once again we seem to be into the interpretation of words salute.gif

Yeah, the definitions are usualy interpretations of words salute.gif

Ultimately information is all that we are discussing here. In itself it is neutral and always demands a certain amount of respect until it can be practically dismissed for empirical reasons.

But believe me or not, I've 19 years of empirical experience with communism to have empirical reasons to reject Zeitgeist as a propaganda intimately reminding that of communists. yes1.gif

I would not recommend anyone to accept Zeitgeist or anything else at face value. But I truly respect and understand Wingmaster's attempt to use it as a jumping off point for further discussion, debate and possibly - one day - consensus.

I don't much believe there would be someday a consensus about Zeitgeist. Some experiences are incommunicable. Principial "right" conservativists will I think always refute it - sometimes so furiously as Alex Jones or with provocative arguments as me. And there will be also people from the "left" which would uncritically embrace it as a "light which will lead them out of the darkness" ...anyway if we consider the intimate ties of the Zeitgeist sources to Lucifer Trust and satanists, it would make sense after all... tongue.gif

I just hope that it can be done in the spirit of what is possible rather than only on the basis of what we think we know.

Yeah, the untrue, base of a lie, is inherently a subject of ignorance - we can't know or proove what actually doesn't exist and can't exist. So we can without being much afraid to be exposed promote it. But as Goebels and Lenin were saying the lie must be big and often repeated to make people believe it...

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jan 31 2009, 09:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 31 2009, 07:52 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (André @ Jan 29 2009, 09:52 PM) *
I was hoping this thread would evolve into a discussion into how we could give more substance to the second part of addendum which is lacking in my opinion.

Instead we are told to beware of any such reflexions, to have blind faith, like religious beliefs in a system that has never existed, "real capitalism", whatever that is.

But that's exactly what I'm warning from. The hypocritical west promotes all the time there is a "capitalism of free market", but in fact it is a myth. In fact the western oligarchy uses the "free market" argument only when it fits to the plans of the plutocrats. In fact it is just a hypocrisy. The "free market" is just for the "free" (wealthy, powerful corrupted elite) whenever they want "freely" rob others from all they have. And they all the time produce a propaganda to distract people with false ideologies as the 2. part of Addendum or demoralize their society with the blatant astrological nonsenses of the 1st part of Zeitgeist I, to create false idea, that blatantly utopical communism is the right direction how to solve the problems of FED or false flag terrorism.
We even have the evidences that all this directly leads to the masons, New Age ideologies and satanism. What more the people need to be warned? dunno.gif nonono.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Jan 31 2009, 08:54 PM
Post #20


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Thanks for your insight, tume. You're really helping my thinking. Here is something I posted in a similar discussion yesterday on another forum.


Regarding Zeitgeist. I finally took the time to watch Addendum. The first half was a lot of good information about money etc, which is available elsewhere and not really news to anyone who has looked into it. Well-presented, though. And we know that Zeitgeist is one of the most watched films, so it does reach a lot of newbies.

The whole pie in the sky part about technology saving us was a bit of a stretch for me. Maybe a decade ago I would have believed it. But certainly not now. Not the way it's presented, anyway.

I do believe we will have a resource based economy, but it will be in the old way. Local and regional. I think we are in the midst of collapse, and nothing can turn it around. Technological Supermen are not going to fly in and save the day. Civilization is wound too tight and is about to spring, to totally pop out of it's case.

I was also disappointed that religion got slammed again. I am not religious. Not sure how to label me. I'm not an atheist, nor am I a believer. I don't think I'm smart enough to understand and just try to let my heart guide my life. But in a sly way, Zeitgeist Addendum does promote atheistic spiritualism, imo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th October 2019 - 04:46 PM