Quote
corboy
If TZM has a secure following and a future, why be so upset at a few dissenting voices, eh?

Quote
Corboy
From what I have witnessed in this discussion, I get a feeling that if TZM and its faithful were to run society, life would get grim very quickly, because dissent would be shouted down.

Quote
Corboy
]No thanks. I dont want that kind of world, so thats why anyone considering TZM as an outlet for their idealism, time and money should have a chance to witness how hard TZM enthusiasts come over here to shout down mere attempts to describe disagreements about TZM from other parts of the internet.

Quote


Zeitgeist 3: Moving Forward, or Treading Water?
Filmmaker Peter Joseph has released his third film, Zeitgeist 3: Moving Forward, sequel to Zeitgeist 2: Addendum and Zeitgeist 1: The Movie. I have always been extremely impressed by the Zeitgeist films, despite the unfortunate emphasis of the first two films on dubious conspiracy-theory-type interpretations of the World Trade Centre disaster that blame the US government and a highly controversial and rather unsubtle "expose" of religion in the first Zeitgeist film that really begs the question of the value of authentic human spirituality.

It seems that Joseph has matured in Zeitgeist 3, which focuses entirely on human nature, health, ecology, economics, and the post-monetary, post-capitalist resource-based economics of the future, setting aside conspiracy theory and anti-religious propaganda that are not really central to the main point of the films in any case. Zeitgeist 3 is much more explicitly identified with the person and philosophy of self-described social engineer Jacque Fresco, creator the The Venus Project. Unfortunately, this rather abstract and theoretical film lacks the dynamism of Zeitgeist 2: Addendum, which is still (IMHO) the best Zeitgeist film in the series, begging the very real question that all of the Zeitgeist films raise without really answering: how are we going to make the transition from the overwhelmingly destructive and entrenched status quo to the pro-human technological society of the future, not merely as a thought experiment but as an actual legal, social, and political construct?

[www.youtube.com]

Nothing in Zeitgeist is really new. As a lifetime student of R. Buckminster Fuller, I am continuously struck by the correspondence between the ideas of Fuller and those of Jacque Fresco and the Zeitgeist movement, not merely in general but in detail, despite Mr. Fresco's denial that Fuller has influenced him in any way. Like Karl Marx before him, Fuller synthesized in a body of brilliant writings, including Nine Chains to the Moon; Ideas and Integrities; Earth, Inc.; Utopia or Oblivion; Untitled Epic Poem on the History of Industrialization; Education Automation; Grunch of Giants; Critical Path; and Cosmography, an alternative, post-capitalist ideology of the future that synthesizes many of the same influences as the Zeitgeist, most notably the technocratic movement. Even Ray Kurzweil, author of The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity Is Near, who is the subject of his own film, Transcendent Man, is indebted to Fuller's concept of the "acceleration of ephemeralization." Curiously, Kurzweil is nowhere mentioned in the Zeitgeist, despite his obvious importance, nor does Kurzweil himself acknowledge Fuller's influence so far as I know. Yet Fuller's comprehensive, even prophetic, brilliance and influence is rarely acknowledged by those most indebted to him. One notable exception is academic turned interviewer Howard Channer, who has declared R. Buckminster Fuller to be the most important human being in history, an assessment with which I am loathe to disagree.

[www.youtube.com]

The Zeitgeist films present one of the most radical and articulate indictments of the political and economic status quo, and yet they are curiously detached from the practical means that will have to be pursued in order to achieve what may be the most revolutionary transformation of the human condition in history. At the end of Zeitgeist 2, after a devastating critique of the status quo, we are advised to boycott the banking system, tv, military, energy companies, and the political system.

Say what? We're going to revolutionize the world by boycotting the daily news?

I had hoped that Zeitgeist 3 would clarify the praxis of the Zeitgeist movement in a more satisfactory way, but the most ambitious positive proposal in the film beyond the aforesaid boycott seems to be the construction of a self-sufficient city, an idea to which Joseph recurs in a radio interview with paleo-conservative Alex Jones. This is not the first time such an idea has been floated. Fuller tried to create a much more modest urban construction, called the Old Man's River City Project, which would still have been an extraordinary achievement. Like Zeitgeist, he disdained government assistance, and tried to raise the funds locally, with the overwhelming support of the local population including the municipal government. Yet, despite major efforts to raise the necessary capital, it failed completely due to lack of funds. Visionary architect Paolo Soleri has also tried to build his dream city, Arcosanti, in the Arizona desert. The town is actually under construction, but after 40 years Soleri has only been able to finance 5% of the proposed construction. We wish Mr. Fresco well, but it seems next to impossible that the dream of a self-sufficient city will ever be achieved in the context of the very monetary system that the Zeitgeist movement explicitly rejects. This is the essential contradiction of the Zeitgeist movement.

According to the Zeitgeist Movement Wikipedia article Phase 3 of the Zeitgeist project will consist of the boycott and city building activities discussed above, but not a word is spoken of Phase 4, the logical end state when the Zeitgeist reforms the actual apparatus of the state - the social, legal, and political reorganization of society. In other words, how will technocracy actually work in terms of transformed human relations? This is the unanswered question of the Zeitgeist, which seems to blithely assume that everything will just work itself out. We've heard that before too. Marxists hold that since the revolution is historically inevitable and communism the end state of history, trying to describe it in an anticipatory way is "bourgeois" and Marxists refuse to describe how communism will work. The result was that when they got themselves into positions of power, they created one of the worst totalitarian regimes in history.

The conclusion of the foregoing seems to be that the Zeitgeist movement is unwilling to accept the implicit radicalism of its own ideology: that the revolutionary transformation of the human condition on a global scale really requires the revolutionary overthrow of the state, and that until this is accepted and pursued explicitly, fundamental change cannot be achieved in reality. In this the Zeitgeist movement is making the same error as the classical anarchist movement and the original technocratic movement itself, which has failed to achieve social change precisely because of its unwillingness to directly engage the political system. The Zeitgeist movement presents a powerful, compelling, and convincing indictment of the status quo, but it is unwilling to become a true social revolutionary force and so, in common with the utopian socialist movements of the past, it will achieve precisely nothing because the state, the centre of power and influence of the established economic order, is untouched.

So far the Zeitgeist movement is largely identified with the personal philosophies of Jacque Fresco, Peter Joseph, and Roxanne Meadows. There are numerous reports on the Internet of people finding that when they contact Mr. Fresco and Ms. Meadows directly with questions that the latter interpret as implying disagreement with their philosophy, the responses of the latter suggest impatience and hostility. I have myself found this to be the case. It will be interesting to see how the Zeitgeist movement accommodates dissent from within its own ranks to see if it is capable of assimilating divergent points of view democratically or falls into the same trap as every other totalitarian system. To believe that every question of social organization can be resolved scientifically, through the exercise of pure objective rationality, represents a naivete that we have not seen since Ayn Rand.

A much more likely scenario I think is that the status quo will devolve into fascism and civil war, unless it is itself undermined by the kind of radically accelerated industrial progress described by Ray Kurzweil. To me this is the most likely scenario of the near future, but time alone will determine the balancing point between the two extremes of fascism and democratic technocracy.

Posted by Alexander Duncan at 10:16 PM

3 comments:
MetahorseJanuary 29, 2011 5:21 PM
I really like your analysis here. Especially, I am astonished by the other projects for creating a self-sufficient city, which mostly failed. But perhaps it would be good to point out that there is at least a small "utopian" city which has seen some moderate success: Auroville - [en.wikipedia.org] -

But even if there were several successful city projects which worked well, this wouldn't still suffice to save the world. The best thing such projects can do it to act as proof-of-concept and as an inspiring example.

Perhaps some day a seasteading project will finally be successful, but I doubt that it will work exactly like the supporters of the Zeitgeist movement think that it would work (because their ideas seem to be at least a tad too idealistic).

I've discussed some general problens of the Zeitgeist movement on my blog: [deathrant.net]
Especially the comments are interesting.

ReplyDelete
dollarabilityMarch 6, 2011 7:27 AM
Note: This review is now available in German translation by request. Please email me at dollarability@gmail.com if you would like a copy.

ReplyDelete
dollarabilityMay 19, 2011 12:28 PM
Interestingly, the Venus Project (i.e., Jacque Fresco) has now announced that the VP and the Zeitgeist Movement (i.e., Peter Joesph) are now no longer affiliated with each other and that the VP will now direct all its own projects. One wonders what underlies this decision. Its an old story isn't it? First there is socialism, then there are Marxism and anarchism, then there is Marxism-Leninism, then there is Stalinism, Maoism, and on and on. Fixed ideologies by definition continue to generate irreconciliable differences between themselves. Same thing with religion. This is the problem with all grand fix-all schemes based on fixed ideologies and ideologues, and the genius of democracy.

ReplyDelete



Nothing in Zeitgeist is really new. As a lifetime student of R. Buckminster Fuller, I am continuously struck by the correspondence between the ideas of Fuller and those of Jacque Fresco and the Zeitgeist movement, not merely in general but in detail, despite Mr. Fresco's denial that Fuller has influenced him in any way. Like Karl Marx before him, Fuller synthesized in a body of brilliant writings, including Nine Chains to the Moon; Ideas and Integrities; Earth, Inc.; Utopia or Oblivion; Untitled Epic Poem on the History of Industrialization; Education Automation; Grunch of Giants; Critical Path; and Cosmography, an alternative, post-capitalist ideology of the future that synthesizes many of the same influences as the Zeitgeist, most notably the technocratic movement. Even Ray Kurzweil, author of The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity Is Near, who is the subject of his own film, Transcendent Man, is indebted to Fuller's concept of the "acceleration of ephemeralization." Curiously, Kurzweil is nowhere mentioned in the Zeitgeist, despite his obvious importance, nor does Kurzweil himself acknowledge Fuller's influence so far as I know. Yet Fuller's comprehensive, even prophetic, brilliance and influence is rarely acknowledged by those most indebted to him. One notable exception is academic turned interviewer Howard Channer, who has declared R. Buckminster Fuller to be the most important human being in history, an assessment with which I am loathe to disagree.





The Zeitgeist films present one of the most radical and articulate indictments of the political and economic status quo, and yet they are curiously detached from the practical means that will have to be pursued in order to achieve what may be the most revolutionary transformation of the human condition in history. At the end of Zeitgeist 2, after a devastating critique of the status quo, we are advised to boycott the banking system, tv, military, energy companies, and the political system.

Say what? We're going to revolutionize the world by boycotting the daily news?

I had hoped that Zeitgeist 3 would clarify the praxis of the Zeitgeist movement in a more satisfactory way, but the most ambitious positive proposal in the film beyond the aforesaid boycott seems to be the construction of a self-sufficient city, an idea to which Joseph recurs in a radio interview with paleo-conservative Alex Jones. This is not the first time such an idea has been floated. Fuller tried to create a much more modest urban construction, called the Old Man's River City Project, which would still have been an extraordinary achievement. Like Zeitgeist, he disdained government assistance, and tried to raise the funds locally, with the overwhelming support of the local population including the municipal government. Yet, despite major efforts to raise the necessary capital, it failed completely due to lack of funds. Visionary architect Paolo Soleri has also tried to build his dream city, Arcosanti, in the Arizona desert. The town is actually under construction, but after 40 years Soleri has only been able to finance 5% of the proposed construction. We wish Mr. Fresco well, but it seems next to impossible that the dream of a self-sufficient city will ever be achieved in the context of the very monetary system that the Zeitgeist movement explicitly rejects. This is the essential contradiction of the Zeitgeist movement.

According to the Zeitgeist Movement Wikipedia article Phase 3 of the Zeitgeist project will consist of the boycott and city building activities discussed above, but not a word is spoken of Phase 4, the logical end state when the Zeitgeist reforms the actual apparatus of the state - the social, legal, and political reorganization of society. In other words, how will technocracy actually work in terms of transformed human relations? This is the unanswered question of the Zeitgeist, which seems to blithely assume that everything will just work itself out. We've heard that before too. Marxists hold that since the revolution is historically inevitable and communism the end state of history, trying to describe it in an anticipatory way is "bourgeois" and Marxists refuse to describe how communism will work. The result was that when they got themselves into positions of power, they created one of the worst totalitarian regimes in history.

The conclusion of the foregoing seems to be that the Zeitgeist movement is unwilling to accept the implicit radicalism of its own ideology: that the revolutionary transformation of the human condition on a global scale really requires the revolutionary overthrow of the state, and that until this is accepted and pursued explicitly, fundamental change cannot be achieved in reality. In this the Zeitgeist movement is making the same error as the classical anarchist movement and the original technocratic movement itself, which has failed to achieve social change precisely because of its unwillingness to directly engage the political system. The Zeitgeist movement presents a powerful, compelling, and convincing indictment of the status quo, but it is unwilling to become a true social revolutionary force and so, in common with the utopian socialist movements of the past, it will achieve precisely nothing because the state, the centre of power and influence of the established economic order, is untouched.

So far the Zeitgeist movement is largely identified with the personal philosophies of Jacque Fresco, Peter Joseph, and Roxanne Meadows. There are numerous reports on the Internet of people finding that when they contact Mr. Fresco and Ms. Meadows directly with questions that the latter interpret as implying disagreement with their philosophy, the responses of the latter suggest impatience and hostility. I have myself found this to be the case. It will be interesting to see how the Zeitgeist movement accommodates dissent from within its own ranks to see if it is capable of assimilating divergent points of view democratically or falls into the same trap as every other totalitarian system. To believe that every question of social organization can be resolved scientifically, through the exercise of pure objective rationality, represents a naivete that we have not seen since Ayn Rand.

A much more likely scenario I think is that the status quo will devolve into fascism and civil war, unless it is itself undermined by the kind of radically accelerated industrial progress described by Ray Kurzweil. To me this is the most likely scenario of the near future, but time alone will determine the balancing point between the two extremes of fascism and democratic technocracy.
Posted by Alexander Duncan at 10:16 PM 3 comments:
MetahorseJanuary 29, 2011 5:21 PM
I really like your analysis here. Especially, I am astonished by the other projects for creating a self-sufficient city, which mostly failed. But perhaps it would be good to point out that there is at least a small "utopian" city which has seen some moderate success: Auroville - [en.wikipedia.org] -

But even if there were several successful city projects which worked well, this wouldn't still suffice to save the world. The best thing such projects can do it to act as proof-of-concept and as an inspiring example.

Perhaps some day a seasteading project will finally be successful, but I doubt that it will work exactly like the supporters of the Zeitgeist movement think that it would work (because their ideas seem to be at least a tad too idealistic).

I've discussed some general problens of the Zeitgeist movement on my blog: [deathrant.net]
Especially the comments are interesting.

ReplyDelete
dollarabilityMarch 6, 2011 7:27 AM
Note: This review is now available in German translation by request. Please email me at dollarability@gmail.com if you would like a copy.

ReplyDelete
dollarabilityMay 19, 2011 12:28 PM
Interestingly, the Venus Project (i.e., Jacque Fresco) has now announced that the VP and the Zeitgeist Movement (i.e., Peter Joesph) are now no longer affiliated with each other and that the VP will now direct all its own projects. One wonders what underlies this decision. Its an old story isn't it? First there is socialism, then there are Marxism and anarchism, then there is Marxism-Leninism, then there is Stalinism, Maoism, and on and on. Fixed ideologies by definition continue to generate irreconciliable differences between themselves. Same thing with religion. This is the problem with all grand fix-all schemes based on fixed ideologies and ideologues, and the genius of democracy.

ReplyDelete

Quote

Thursday, February 17, 2011
Deconstructing the Zeitgeist Movement
I've seen the various Zeitgeist movies, including most of the first one which was pretty dubious and has been widely criticized. Here is some commentary on the latest such movie, called Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.

If you've seen any of the other Zeitgeist movies beyond the first one then you can save yourself quite a lot of time because the latest version doesn't contain much in terms of new concepts, but rather it presents the existing ideas in a slightly more entertaining way. If not, then here is the latest one.



In my estimation, I'm sympathetic towards the resource based economy idea, and taking a systems approach to running things. In the long term actually I don't think there's going to be very much alternative to managing economies as integrated machine-managed systems, as opposed to the highly unsustainable and periodically dysfunctional way in which things work currently. The depiction of future cities is nice, but there's also a vast amount of hand-waving here (practically flapping) and not very much depth to the grand visions.

A world without money

One of the major themes of Zeitgeist is the possibility of a world without money, where nanotechnology - or some other futuristic wizardry, perhaps involving robots - can synthesise and recycle products on demand. For many sorts of consumer products this may be quite feasible, and it's not too difficult to imagine bigger and better RepRaps combined with more traditional forms of industrial automation. But there may still be competing zero sum interests, and how should these be arbitrated? Suppose citizen X wants a boat and citizen Y wants a car, but the computerised management system indicates that there is not enough resources in the environmental inventory to satisfy both demands simultaneously. There may still be a need for some forms of trade, and where there's trade there is inevitably a need for some kind of abstract representation of value. The non-homogeneous distribution of resources around the planet will surely mean that there will be surpluses of resources in some areas and deficits in others, and traditionally this has been addressed with some kind of trading system.

If money still exists in the distant future, perhaps cryptocurrencies are the way forward, avoiding the issues of financial fraud and centralized banking which currently bedevil our monetary system.

Scientism

My other main criticism is that the depiction of science in the Zeitgeist movies.

Firstly the treatment of the role of genetics and environment seems rather loaded towards a notion that genes don't matter very much. In human society there are numerous phenomena which have little or nothing to do with genes, but claiming that none of our behaviors or biases are in any way regulated by genetics I think is probably not well founded in contemporary biology. For instance, it's quite likely that it is to some degree "genetically determined" that most humans have two legs, and five fingers on each hand.

If the morphology of the body is regulated by genes it seems at least plausible that the morphology of its organs, including the brain, are also influenced to some extent by genetics. Our understanding of genetics is still at quite an primitive stage, so there will be much more waiting to be discovered, but it's likely that life is a deviously complex mashup of genetic and environmental interactions, where genetics does have some role in setting up biases and propensities towards certain kinds of behavior or emotional reactions. An example would be that it's believed that some people possess tetrachromatic vision, which gives them slightly different visual sensing capability and maybe different behaviors or behavioral biases become possible as a consequence.

Also in Zeitgeist it's assumed that there is a single "correct" solution to resource management problems. In complex systems such as a society usually there are a range of possible solutions, all with their own accompanying costs and benefits. None of these may be "the best", and choosing one depends upon what direction you wish the society to move in. This may be something which requires decisions to be voted on by citizens, rather than made automatically, otherwise you're putting a computer system in charge of the long term overall evolution of society - which may be asking too much of a system whose main function is resource allocation.

Future Architecture

In the podcast there's some criticism made that the circular cities envisaged aren't easily scalable. This is a reasonable criticism, but not really a show stopper. I can imagine other designs which would scale in a modular way.

If we're thinking about the architecture of the distant future, say a century or more from now, then this is a time when resource shortages of raw materials is going to be ever more acute and an increasingly large fraction of resources will need to be either reusable, recyclable or decomposable (made from organics). Assuming more advanced genetic engineering capabilities it might be possible to have buildings which are partly or entirely organic - made from a wood-like material which can self repair by extracting carbon from the air using sunlight as an energy source to assemble it into a super-strong nanotube like material. Another idea would be to have the walls of buildings contain a soil layer within which the roots of plants could grow. This might mean that you can grow vegetables along the sides of high rise buildings (rather than only in the windows) and have robots periodically harvesting them as part of a localised intensive food production system capable of supporting the appetites of megacities. These green buildings could be fertilised by processed sewage produced by the occupants, reducing the strain on sewer systems which has been a perpetual issue for large conurbations, and I think there are existing "vertical farming" proposals of this kind already. Under this scenario buildings would from a distance have a fuzzy appearance and varying colouration, depending upon what type of vegetation was growing on them. Residents could also get creative with configurable robotic plantation schemes to create artwork, brand logos, slogans or badges of status/allegiance along the sides of their residences. Another, perhaps more likely, situation would be that all buildings are coated with a photovoltaic material which produces electricity.

As for monolithic "totalitarian" style of construction, I agree with the comments made in the podcast about this not reflecting the diversity of human culture. Cities in the future are likely to be at least as diverse as they are now, containing a combination of old and new. A good example of this is the city of York in which I lived for quite a while. It's a 2000 year old city, where you have architecture which is many centuries old standing next to modern office blocks, and a sewer system which was constructed by the Romans in the first few centuries of its existence. It's a rare occasion where cities are built entirely from scratch, and even then all cities evolve over time in a way which is difficult to plan for unless you have a crystal ball which can foresee future transport systems and types of economy (the original roads of York were the width of a chariot, i.e. two horses side by side). I've seen the totalitarian architectural style myself in various cities. Typically it was built in the 1960s and consists primarily of grey concrete blocks as far as the eye can see. It's pretty depressing, and no doubt is a contributory factor to the psychosocial stress of its inhabitants. But people can be more imaginative than this, especially when they're empowered by technology.

Zeitgeist as a meme

On the whole in spite of their failings and vagueness the Zeitgeist movies (at least the later ones) are a well crated attempt to bring ideas from cybernetics into the public arena. I'm not aware of anyone in the mainstream media who even remotely touches upon these sorts of issues. If you're not paying attention then it's easy to adopt a whiggish attitude towards the way that current societies and economies operate, but the only thing which is for certain is that the way we live now is definitely unsustainable, and that things will need to change in what by todays standards are fairly substantive ways if there is to be any longer term future for human civilization.

Zeitgeist also provides a much more optimistic counterpoint to the the frequently gloomy presentations about the future made by Singularitarians, who don't take a systems viewpoint (hence the runaway scenarios) and all too often rely upon scare stories to get their message across

Quote
Iamlillith
what do you think you have here? most of this is from 2011. you trashed Peter Joseph for coming at a critic for an article written a year ago and here you are bringing up nonsense that really is no longer relevant. What else ya got? not to mention you have links that no longer work, all the TZM forum shit can’t be seen??? and most of this shit is taken out of context and grossly being misrepresented and misinterpreted, are you guys for real? I want to see shit with some MEAT, real substance shit that I can digest and think about, but so far your entire website is like a big HATER filled montage of crap. Are you jealous of him? just wondering, do you want to be like him and struggle to figure why you can’t muster up enough supporters to come at TZM with real evidence backed data and information opposing anything the guy has to say? CTFU!!! btw just to make shit clear i am not a member of TZM, i go where the info makes sense, i came here to see some good arguments against the movement, yeah that failed.

iam lilith

Quote
Whatever

Very well said, Mr. Dobbs I’m also not a “member” of TZM (whatever the hell that is) and I also go where the information makes sense. Calling this the pathetic “hater” site that it is could not have been more on point. It’s also great to get different points of view that make sense but those points of view have to be offered honestly and with absolute integrity which the participants of THIS particular “cult” simply don’t have the capacity for.

This site has all the credibility of the National Enquirer.

Epic fail

Whatever

Quote

KANASKA
Zeitgeist 3 Review - NWO B.S.
Posted by Kanaska Carter on January 17, 2011 at 2:51 PM

After watching Zeitgeist at The Mayfair last night I am left with a bitter mind-numbing feeling.

To put it bluntly. This movie is fucked up. We are expected to sit through an almost 3 hour long video, listening to this monotanous voice. It then rises bluntly at a few random points to wake us up from almost falling asleep repeatedly. Am I the only one?

At one point they begin to speak about the Venus Project and how we need this utopian society where we are given our basic needs and then we flourish, all transporation systems are taken away except for what... is provided. All money is thrown away. I agree with this to a point. But the system I feel is set up to fail.

This movie wishes for you to believe what it is saying and not allow for you to think for yourselves.

There are good aspects in regards to caring for humanity and allowing for us to find a simpler way of living.... It throws in the random heart-wrenching video clip of a skinned or burned animal still alive. Humans and environment suffering. I get this. I understand we need solutions.

Earthship anyone? Eco-villages perhaps? Atleast in this situation we are working to create the villages or atmosphere ourselves. Instead of allowing for technology to reign. And we still have our freedoms intact.

Right when they begin to speak about The Venus Project it shows shadows of people 'in the crowd' but really its just a shadow in the film so it makes us think people are standing up saying "Hey this is NWO Shit.." blah blah blah 'disagreeing'. Then he goes on to say...

"Woah woah woah..." To make us feel he has addressed our problems.

This film is in over 20 languages in over 60 countries worldwide. Reaching such a grand scale of people. It is attempting to gloss over our eyes and make us think this is the only way. I agree with the Earthship idea more. In regards to traveling we should be allowed to own vehicles, just ran on free energy, not oil.

After speaking with people at the Zeitgeist 3 premiere at The Mayfair it literally looked as if they were high off of the movie.

The movie tries to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, because all of our 'problems' are 'fixed' for us. But really it is not fixed at all. This will cause more problems. We cannot really be too productive in this atmosphere. We are like hamsters in cages.

At the beginning they're saying that ADHD and Schizophrenia are rare disorders. All schizophrenia is - mental patterns we do not understand, many shamans are believed to be schizophrenic. One who walks a different path. They are breaking down how genetics do not contribute to whom you are. How violence can be avoided if we are not abused severely as children and if poverty could be avoided. It states that through studies they have come to find that violence and addiction are less evident in individuals who have not been severely abused as a child.

Then it also says at one point that if they were to propose this idea to you that we would all raise our hands and agree with the ideas proposed in this film. Then in the film you see all these fake images of hands raising up on the screen as if coming from the audience. Is this supposed to make us feel like we should agree? The movie seriously messes with your emotions.

I agree with the issues he speaks about. We need to change this and that within our world. Yes, these are all issues we must work towards finding solutions to.

I'd say watch it and lemme know what you think..

I posted to the Zeitgeist Facebook Page and was blasted by people saying that I am a naysayer.

I'm not afraid of this movie.

It attempts to break down who we are through some good and loose arguments about psychology from a few sources then it attempts to suggest that there would be less violence in this form of living atmosphere via The Venus Project. It then takes away all form of transportation except for what is provided by the government, says that due to the large amount of car accidents that we should not have the right to travel independently anymore?? And we're supposed to hang out, eat and just...how do we advance ourselves in this type of atmosphere?

This is turning into the biggest brainwashing scheme of 2011. With the Earthship idea or Eco-Villages we live completely off of the grid but we do not completely rely on technology to do everything for us.

With The Venus Project we are still being monitored and I'm certain even more heavily in this situation...seeing as how many of our freedoms are taken away and everything is literally now controlled by the government. We do not have to do anything. We are animals in jail cells, being fed when we are told and just remaining complacent and without opinion or any freedoms.

This movie attempts to make us believe that technology will be our savior.

And even though many individuals love being in the Construction field, this movie points out how dangerous this field of work is, so it must be obliterated.

There are also three random images which kinda make you feel like you're being brainwashed. The first one is the 011010010010011 all over the screen coming closer, then disappearing, closer to the screen then disappearing. And repeat. Repeat.

Then the second part is of the men walking towards the street as if marching. It repeats. Repeats. Repeats. Hmm...

The third random image is of SICK DYING that takes up the entire screen when talking about humanity. It appears to be a visual/audio trick to grab your attention. It almost jolts you when it comes on screen.

He also throws in swearing to make it seem 'edgy' at one point. Something like "Are you fucking kidding me?" about the situation of our Earth/Monetary Systems/etc.


As mentioned previously -- schizophrenia and ADHD are mental patterns of one whom is misunderstood, odd, eccentric. They wish for us to believe that it is a rare disorder. ADHD is just another term created so the pharmaceutical companies can make more and more money off of numbing the population.

Wake up. Please.

All I gotta say

iiiis

Fuck Zeitgeist.

Thats right.

I fuckin' said it! lol ¢¾

Z3

Is Definitely.

Not For Me

Quote

Billy Bingbong
I hope I’m not alone here in having a severe problem with the graphic content in this video, namely a live skinned dog.. Am I the only one who has a problem with this? I hope you have not all been so desensitized by the medis that you don’t see this 5 seconds of this video as completely unnecessary.. Please someone agree with me.

Quote

Billy Bingbong
If this video is half decent then how was it necessary to include graphic images of animal torture? I am disgusted.

Quote

http://www.twoism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=138331&sid=78fa43c363f9409434e913c8dad4485f

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:40 pm Post subject:

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

I had to turn it off (or at least take a break) after I saw the skinned dog still alive looking around for someone to put him out of it's pain... It made me beyond angry and completely sad to the point of getting sick to my stomach. No animal should have to go through such pain for some Fat American's coat, or some kid's barbie doll jacket. It's fucking sick and needs to be stopped ASAP! How China can let this go on just shows what kind of people they are.

Sorry for the rant, but I am sickened

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:40 pm Post subject:

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

peter joseph provides thought-provoking concepts about a massive global restructure. the introductory segue regards genetics interlaced with analysis regarding the general human condition. there are a number of excellent interviews throughout the film.

overall, an enjoyable view. i particularly liked the foreboding use of rush's song 'cygnus: x-1', about half-way through the film. i'd post a little more, but i just sat for three hours and haven't yet begun my day.










Author Message
Spenner
Sherbet Head

Joined: 01 Jan 2010
Posts: 783
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:54 am Post subject:

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

We watched part of the Zeigeist movie in class (creative concepts class eheh) and it was very interesting and some powerful knowledge. Very glad I watched what I did.

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?threaded=1&v=1WtWSGuJ3Ec&page=2