Zeitgeist as a propaganda tool for a New World Order

reply to post by Annee

Is there a you tube copy of "Pale Blue Dot" out there? You are right about a natural progression towards collectivism in the world (hunter gatherer, agricultural communities, city states, regional governments, national governments, international "governance" and so on). But the NWO wants to control it and not allow it to happen where citizens retain their individual rights.

I've read the first few posts. While the points on Germany and the religious section of Zeitgeist the Movie may be right. But I find the rest of the argument to be baseless, crude; rendering this topic in my opinion, vain.

With that said, I respect your inteligent use of the english language, but the later arguments you provide are substantially weak. Your replies throughout this thread lead me to believe that you started this entire argument on minimal exposure to the movement, including the movies and educational content provided by TZM and TVP alike.

First off, you are making several assumptions about the films and the movement. Peter Joseph, who is the director/creator of the movies, produced the first Zeitgeist Movie entirely on his own, before The Zeitgeist Movement even existed, nor any involvement with the Venus Project.

So after addressing that the first film was made without any intention to represent the movement, we can realize that they are not directly related.

While I agree with Peter Joseph about the ludicrousness and dangers of religion, especially Christianity, I found the argument supplied in the Zeitgeist The Movie to be crude, how ever... Peter Joseph has supplied all sources to his arguments. How ever, that aside, the whole religion argument is pointless to begin with.

How ever many of these arguments were never addressed in Addendum, nor Moving Forward, which were produced to directly represent the movement. While much of it is education on the economy system, and the Venus Project, someone with the cognitive ability, and emotional detachment from the argument can realize that the argument for these new ideas are far more logical than our current system of false scarcity and competition to control those false scarcities for the perpetuation for the few who are in positions to take advantage of such opportunities.

There are plenty of resources to go around, divided fairly, the majority of the population could have a far higher quality of living and far more material possessions, so long as such resources are intelligently utilized. But no one wants to work for free (remember, there would be NO currency as expressed by The Venus Project, rendering jcrash's comment on pg1 void.) To replace the large majority of the workforce, robotics would be largely put in place to keep care of resource harvesting, refining, manufacturing, and data collection, so on and so forth.

With no currency, there is no theft of material possessions. And also with that said, there would be no need to protect your belongings, because if something disappears, you have access to more. The only reason people in modern society are so protective of their possessions is because they cost money, and are difficult to replace.

There would be no foundation for a New World Order, national/international laws and armies would disappear, leaving regions to govern themselves, and as education advances with modern knowledge (instead of the current outdated education systems we all went through as children), laws and attempts to control behavior would be required less and less, since critical thinking and scientific methods are in fact encouraged. Those with addictions or behavioral issues would be encouraged to go through therapy, since jails and law enforcement largely wouldn't exist. For excessively violent individuals, the population is capable of handling such individuals in a manner seen democratically fit, by a highly educated population capable of critical thinking.

No one would be in charge.

I can go on and on, but as I continue to read your posts in this thread, I have to question your willingness and ability to comprehend what you are attempting to argue.

In addition communism has a central government. With that said communism isn't an evil word, and all politically inclined systems are subjective to those who control it.

Resources in cities would be managed by regional or global super computers centered in each city, networked to those in the outside world. With resources calculated and transparent, there is little room for any corruption. Since currency wouldn't exist any way, there would be little reason to try to control anything at all. And in a transparent system such as TVP, there's not a whole lot you could get away with. And if someone does something you don't like? Grab your spouse and children, walk out the door, and move into another city on the opposite side of the globe. No need to sell your home and pack up the moving van.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Annee

 

Is there a you tube copy of "Pale Blue Dot" out there? You are right about a natural progression towards collectivism in the world (hunter gatherer, agricultural communities, city states, regional governments, national governments, international "governance" and so on). But the NWO wants to control it and not allow it to happen where citizens retain their individual rights.

Yes -- there are several videos for "Pale Blue Dot" - - which I consider the most important video ever made.

My computer is acting up - - and I can't post the Youtube linksl.

I also want to address that the purpose of the religious section was to address the producers viewpoints on it. It's not hate, rather than an upfront argument against it.

With your comment on how Germans were felt to be oppressed, this is in no way an oppression of Christian religion.

How ever, I will honestly say that Christians like to fantasize about being oppressed, which serves as confidence that "The World Hates Us So We Must Be Right," which serves as an emotional security barrier against the Cognitive Dissonance that every Christian experiences.

I am strongly leaning towards the possibility you feel threatened by someone else's public display of opinion and are attempting to play martydom.

The world does not center around Christians

I'm just gonna make this really short - - in response to a plethora of words.

Vain? Someone actually used the word "vain" and is using that as a debating point?

reply to post by Annee


Obviously not. You can't argue that something is vain, by saying its vain.

It's a matter of opinion that something is vain, or pointless.

Furthermore I provided an argument. This is off topic, so let's address the topic at hand, and not the use of the english language.

Originally posted by Scarcer
reply to post by Annee

 

Obviously not. You can't argue that something is vain, by saying its vain.

It's a matter of opinion that something is vain, or pointless.

Furthermore I provided an argument. This is off topic, so let's address the topic at hand, and not the use of the english language.

Personally - - I'd classify your word count vain.

Do you think you could try the shorthand version?

Seriously - - - you label Zeitgeist VAIN - - - then right a "book" to explain why? You lost me in the first paragraph.

reply to post by Annee


A forum topic with a large opening post and and several discussion points calls for a full response.

If you want to hold emotional value against my conclusion feel free to do so, but this my last reply to you until you choose to address the topic at hand and provide an actual argument.

This is off-topic and pointless and I expect our last few replies to be 'deleted' by the ATS staff.

Please communicate as adults should.

Originally posted by Annee

Seriously - - - you label Zeitgeist VAIN - - - then right a "book" to explain why? You lost me in the first paragraph.

Was that directed at the movement? Or the OPs dissertation on the movement?

I took it as being directed towards the OPs dissertation, not at Zeitgeist itself. I could be wrong though.

Originally posted by Scarcer
reply to post by Annee

 

A forum topic with a large opening post and and several discussion points calls for a full response.

If you want to hold emotional value against my conclusion feel free to do so, but this my last reply to you until you choose to address the topic at hand and provide an actual argument.

This is off-topic and pointless and I expect our last few replies to be 'deleted' by the ATS staff.

Please communicate as adults should.

Oh cute.

So now you use evasion tactics - - - and try to put on me - - that you weren't pithy and succinct - - - in making a point.

Vain - - is not a point. It makes you go directly to the person and that person's issues - - - as to why they consider a progressive life concept - - Vain.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Annee

Seriously - - - you label Zeitgeist VAIN - - - then right a "book" to explain why? You lost me in the first paragraph.

Was that directed at the movement? Or the OPs dissertation on the movement?

I took it as being directed towards the OPs dissertation, not at Zeitgeist itself. I could be wrong though.

I'm not sure. But it was too much for me to wade through all those "wordy words".

Was there really a point there that I missed? I could have drowned in the muck first.

ENOUGH
All members in this discussiong should know better.

Any further posts that are off topic or include attacks on other members, polite or otherwise, will be removed and warnings will be handed out.

Thank You.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator

Originally posted by Scarcer
In addition communism has a central government.

Communism (as Marx & Engels explained it) does NOT have a central government - not in its mature form (compared to its transitional form). The State will "wither away" or "die out" because there is simply no need for it.

See, for example, this quote:
"As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society—the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society—this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out."
(Anti-Dühring 1878 by Friedrich Engels, Part III: Socialism)

I have zero doubt that any attempt at a Communist state in America and most other countries, at this point in time, would be nothing more than hidden Fascism, just like we have now. Perhaps they'd use it to implement true Fascism. That's what scares me, and I don't think its worth the risk. I say we get Fascism out of our government now and proceed from there.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by adjensen
But somehow, it's only a matter of opinion?

It is an opinion that is fueled by an emotional response to the nature of the information.

It has nothing to do with the credibility of the sources.

Well, of course it does.

Zeitgeist points to Murdock. Murdock points to Graves and Massey. Graves and Massey point to... no one. They have no sources, which leads one to the inevitable conclusion that they made it up, as both had reasons to smear Christianity.

On the other side of the equation, we can point to scholarly research, cultural traditions and historical evidence that refutes the claims made by Graves and Massey. Krishna was born on 25 December to a virgin? Tell that to the 850 million Hindus who seem to think that he was the eighth child of Devaki and Vasudeva, and born in July.

reply to post by explorience


The problem with that theory, that government will wither away, is that it doesnt really accept human beings as they are.

Human beings are social animals, and in most groups of social animals there are leaders and followers. One of the reasons our democracy is being hijacked is this same thing. Not every actually wants to make decisions for the group. Even the Greeks had to herd the populace in to do their duty and vote. Many people really dont want to be troubled to understand the issues and make decisions. Its just a fact. Not a value statement about those people. But that fact does undermine some political "theories" like communism, democracy, anarchy, etc. You really do need a leader. The trick is to get a leader who will lead for the sake of the group, not him/her self, and to create a system which can auto correct if the leader becomes corrupt.

So, any workable system cannot be based on the fantasy that people want self determination. They really dont. They may think they do, they may say they do, but our actions for all of recorded history say otherwise, and when we look at our primate cousins we also see otherwise. We have no evidence to believe such a system will work, or is actually desirable. What human beings want, in general, obviously not EVERY human being will want the same thing, is a benign leader who makes the big decisions, and the right to make the small choices in their life in a system that is just, equitable, and flexible.

Personally, I am a fan of the Republic. I do not think any one ever created a better system than Plato. Even the aspects of the Republic that horrify philosophy professors, (mine anyway ) can be addressed with our current technology. Bottom line, however, is no matter what system we adopt, it has to account for and allow the majority of the people to remain politically inactive. It should not prevent those who wish to be active from being so, but it has to remain workable and valid if the majority opt out. Which they will.

Edit to add,

And it also MUST separate wealth and personal gain from power and decision making for the group.

reply to post by Scarcer


Thank you for the comments, and if you wish to point out specific arguments that I have made which you consider "weak", I can respond to them, or you can use this general response as a base.

First of all, the purpose of this thread is to point out the nature of the Zeitgeist Movie as a work of propaganda. I personally do not believe that to be a big question -- it is clearly a film which is intended to elicit a response, one favourable to the creators of the movie. To that end, I find it highly unlikely that it was not made with an intentional point -- if you want to make the case that it was just a "random conspiracy movie" and then Peter Joseph stumbled across the Venus Project subsequently and decided to start promoting that, go right ahead, but I think you've a bit of work ahead of you.

The success of the propaganda is evidenced in this thread. Joseph has no interest in educating Christians, or exposing NWO tactics -- the intent is to ingratiate himself with people who distrust organizations, whether Church, State, Bilderberg or whatever. And the proof that it works is right here:

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



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

People.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No thanks.

I think we have been so conditioned - propagandized - to accept commercialism and reject communism/fascism as the Devil itself - - - that being open to other forms of life is difficult.

If I started with a blank slate - - would I design society/government as it is today? NO

Every social structure has it pitfalls. But if I started with a blank slate - - I would design a progressive socialist leaning society.

I support that every person should have their basic needs met - - and I do mean basic. No family needs more then one private bedroom and can use roll up mats to sleep in a combo/living quarters.

One problem is people are not Equal. There is a difference between everyone having Equal Opportunity and being Equal.

I say "progressive" socialism - - because there does need to be some kind of reward system for those who want to better themselves.

As far as religion goes - - - I support Spiritual centers for all and any belief - - but not separate churches.

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

reply to post by Annee


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

However, a resource based economy is not limited socialism, and the difficulty of a state-centric approach is that it inherently becomes overbearing. The current economic crisis in Europe results, in large measure, from entitlements, and the solution is either to quash the entitlements or to deepen the hold of the state in order to sustain them. The former will tend to result in a backlash against the state, while the latter defers it, so which is more likely, when the decision maker is the state?