Zeitgeist Deception - Producer no longer feels 9/11 was an inside job

[Dig]

The Venus Project:
The concept of no money and the aquisition of goods at a grocery store

PJ: "For example, in this society, let's say that you wanted to go to the grocery store. Well guess what, you go in, you get what you need, and you leave. That's it. Why. Why would no one steal? Because there is no reason to, they can't sell it. There is no money. There is no reason for differential advantage in a position where you can't actually engage in gaining something through abuse in society. This is a core point in why money is such a horrible invention for control. Money is the ultimate divide and conquer...."

Now there can be a few interpretations to this and I do not know which is correct. 

Interpretation 1:
Let us say that he really is talking about a world where you can truly just go in a store, take everything and it will magically reappear for the next customer.  I guess that is one possibility in the future world and thus is a valid interpretation


Interpretation 2:
Another interpretation would be that people would be conditioned to only take what they need and would never ever have any desire for more than that and then the communal "family" would be able to stock what everyone needs for that week and people would just come in and take the amount they have been pre-conditioned to want. Then the next would take only what they were preconditioned to want, and so on and so forth.  The store would be supplied via RetailLink type Wal-Mart control mechanisms and time sensitive allocation systems so that the workers/robots would be pre-programed to create/supply/distribute what was required within the preset boundaries in the master social distribution program. 

I have never seen this function in a society and think the previous interpretation might be more based in reality given man's natural competitive instincts. AJ has pointed this out on numerous occasions in the interview and admits to it being a part of his innate triggers.  PJ finally admits that man is a combination of innate desires and conditioning, but gives much more dominance to the conditioned side of man rather than the inate and non-conditioned personality/makeup.  But let us say that NWO via technology is able to condition us fully out of any competitive sense whatsoever. Then it may be conceivably possible to convert us into content humans, only having desires for products that we were pre-conditioned to want.  I suppose this is another acceptable interpretation of the "future grocery store" statement by PJ.


Interpretation 3:
There is a third interpretation that I do not think is particularly more or less "correct" but should be considered nonetheless. It actually fits in very nicely to NWO documents/CFR document/Bilderberg plans and Project Blue Beam plans.  Just read the following concerning cash and the absense of barter in the New World Order agenda (BTW Aaron Russo also talked about this when he exposed his conversation with Rockefeller):

Project Blue Beam written in 1994:

Phasing Out Cash & Independence
The techniques used in the fourth step is exactly the same used in the past in the USSR to force the people to accept Communism. The same technique will be used by the United Nations to implement the new world religion and the new world order. [...] According to the many reports we have received, we believe it will begin with some kind of worldwide economic disaster. Not a complete crash, but enough to allow them to introduce some kind of in-between currency before they introduce their electronic cash to replace all paper or plastic money. The in-between currency will be used to force anyone with savings to spend or turn in their cash because they understand that people who have money and are not dependent upon them might be the very ones who will mount an insurrection against them. If everyone is broke, no one can fund a war of any kind: paper currency will cease to exist.

So imagine the store analogy again...

PJ: "...you go in, you get what you need, and you leave."

Your implanted microchip recognizes your account, the individual items have their own chips in them, the doorway records the items and your implanted microchip. So then your socialized allowance gets marked as being given these individual items.

PJ: "That's it. Why. Why would no one steal? Because there is no reason to, they can't sell it. There is no money."

Of course no one will be allowed to sell anything.  Every single item will not only have a unique product code, but also a unique code/serial number for that specific good or service itself.  Just try buying a computer at a store, they now have individual identifyers where before they only had product numbers.  Every individual item is now slowly being tracked.  In additiion, it is not inconceivable that in the very near future home doorways (and probably waste receptacles to ensure proper recycling or termination of product use/consumption) will probably also have monitoring devices.  This would then track every single unique and numbered product that enters your doorway.  They will verify that they were taken from the store and that it was recorded that you as an individual took them from the store and that you were allowed through your allowance to take them from the store. This tracking will be based on your implanted chip, the chips in the products, and the gates/doorway tracking systems that you enter. We have already seen peculiar tracking devices on major roadways to track the goods and services in trucks. It is conceivable that this would also be done with cars.

PJ: "...There is no reason for differential advantage in a position where you can't actually engage in gaining something through abuse in society....

And then comes the socialist doctrine again: protections from abuse in society, not abuses to individuals, only in society or rather 'to' society or to the 'family.' Of course the grid/matrix will be set up so that you cannot create a 'ABUSE IN SOCIETY'.  There obviously will be 'TECHNOLOGY' to eradicate any 'ABUSE IN SOCIETY.'

PJ: "...This is a core point in why money is such a horrible invention for control. Money is the ultimate divide and conquer...."

I think he is again referring to cash and if so he could be seeing that cash and the hoarding of cash could be seen as a threat to "society" and socialized structures.   When he says "horrible invention for control" he is possibly meaning individual control over socialized constructs.  Money allows individual control, allows for the individual to use it as a common form of exchange for grnting the individual control over the societal limitations controlled via a central construct. During the great depression, the socialists were able to conduct gold seizures from homes because of it being a threat to "society."  The funny thing is, PJ mentions this in his first flick.  But I find doublespeak and Problem/Reaction/Solution agendas all over his films.

=======================

Well the point I would like to make is that the first 2 interpretations in my mind are unrealistic whereas the last one is actually an NWO plan.  I have no idea what PJ was thinking when he said this stuff, but many false leaders have been set up by NWO to preach intricate false paradigms where the hidden agenda is sometimes in plain view.

[Dig]

UN Agenda 21 and Resource Management Control Systems


Agenda 21 Document
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/articles/Agenda21.pdf


America's Choice - Liberty or Sustainable Development
Part 1 of 3 (1hr 21mins) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8137185398743302029
Part 2 of 3 - (2hours 9mins) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903112019958738510
Part 3 of 3 - (1hour 55mins) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3160326442882912356

"Five experts on environmental science and politics expose what has been called the greatest weapon of mass destruction of our time. It is the elimination of personal freedom under the banner of sustainable development. Michael Shaw, an ecologist and founding member of Freedom 21 Santa Cruz, shows how the concepts behind sustainable development are incompatible with personal liberty. Michael Coffman, President of Environmental Perspectives, reveals the false assumptions and outright fraud in sustainable development proposals. Michael Chapman, of the American Heritage Research Group, makes a breathtaking presentation on how American schoolchildren have been conditioned to uncritically accept the premises of sustainable development as part of a larger plan to prepare them for global citizenship. Beverly Eakman, author of Cloning of the American Mind, exposes the group-manipulation tactics used in schools and public meetings to alter the attitudes of unwary participants. Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center, summarizes and focuses the issues in terms of what must be done if freedom is to survive."

[Rock]

I guess the trolls only liked this thread when it was in the general section.  Now that it is in the second most popular category they disappear?

I will never get an answer to the question in my signature, will I?

Oh Well,




Rock

[sociostudent]

That's a key point, because I'm far from convinced he does know. My hunch is that his first Zeitgeist film (almost all of which I agree with, including the part on religion) brought him into contact with people who had been indoctrinated with the NWO ideology (whether they knew it or not), and they, in turn, indoctrinated him.

I'm reminded of something one of the Branch Davidians said in Waco: The Rules of Engagement: "I mean nothing to myself; I want to know what truth is, and I'm searching for it. If he [David Koresh] happens to be the vehicle that shows me, I thank God for it."

This is a vivid illustration of how a thoughtful, well-meaning person can be duped into a belief system that, despite whatever kernels of truth it has, is corrupt overall.

Very well said, I was thinking the same thing. The elite see what WE see, and when they see a new documentarian who can be manipulated, who's to say a slimeball somewhere didn't "recruit" him....I was almost LOL when he said that, "yeah, there's little clubs here and there, but they're just trying to preserve their power", all nonchalantly. I'm sorry, but it's not like the Club of Rome, the CFR, Bilderberg, and the Trilateral commission are small beans, ok? They've succeeded in ruining our economy and are seriously trying to depopulate the world by 80%. But they're just a "few little clubs"? WTF?!

[lord edward coke]

The fraud in zeitgeist is that it denies human nature. We are all sinners by nature, however, ZG attempts to confuse this and blame sin/wrong on the environment. The end result, if you buy the ZG line, will be for you to have "faith" in other men to solve your problems. Just the same old authoritarian agenda that has been around since Satan visited Eve in the Garden of Eden.

As for money being bad, give me a break.  Money is a unit of measure. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact it has been corrupted by the central bankers does not make money guilty of anything, the central bankers are guilty. The ZG approach has no more substance than blaming guns for what people do with them.

For ZG to have any "believers" requires that the most basic subjects (human nature/money) be confused  successfully. ZG is not at all about empowering the individual to rise above being his own worst enemy, it is about enslaving the individual.

What ZG does do is serve as evidence that in the end, the only real battle is between Satan (ZG) and God.  The NWO is just a tactic of Satan's, and not even the NWO is the big picture. The decline of biblical literacy and Christianity in the USA is what has allowed the advancement of the NWO agenda.

RIGHT ON THE $$$   .             Notice how 'peter' comes right up out of his chair at the mention of religion/christianity?      These luciferians cannot restrain there WHITE-HOT HATRED of christianity. It always amazes me and sends up the red- flag!!!

[lord edward coke]

AJ: "You are mentioning all these...clearly in the context...all these terrible outmodded things, and I read all the social worker books about how the family is a disease and all this, and I am asking is the family a good thing or is it going to go bye bye too?"

PJ: "Of course the family is a good thing, the family is a natural institution. Family is where people will return to in this type of situation. But there will be a different association, because the family will become the group community in many ways. The extentionality that we feel, this thing we call love is not restricted to your little group or your family."

If that response does not scare the living shit out of you, I do not know what else will.

Initially in the response, he says the family is a good thing.  In that sense he is using the communal, the collective term family.  Then later at the end of the response, he uses the word family in the sense AJ means it...parents, siblings, your household that you grew up with.  In that sense he connects it with a demeaning term "little group" to mean that localization of power, localization of love, localization of social structures will obviously be subservient to the larger collective "family."

AJ got distracted when he used the word "love" (because PJ was supposedly above such terms) that he never addressed this total Pol Pot type thinking concerning the family (watch the Killing Fields for more info on this).  The family is the strongest local set of power and any NWO future plans include the breakup of the family (why do you think there are generational incestuous criminals given many jobs and no sentence? Why do you think CPS can come at any moment and steal children from their parents, etc.).  This is a major issue and it got revealed in the interview.

PJ then talks about how there will no longer be any CPS to destroy the family. In this sense he is again talking of the collective family who would of course not need CPS because all children would already be brought up in CPS environments.  Really a troubling NWO world he is projecting whether he knows it or not.

RIGHT-ON!!!   when 'peter' mentions family he means like hitlery   ' it takes a village'

and when he talks, humanity he means the chosen few ,who are selected to partake in the future.

all the others (riff-raff, goy,maggits,parasites, etc) will be exterminated. 

HARD-LABOR CAMPS ARE STANDING BY!!!

[Dig]

RIGHT ON THE $$$   .             Notice how 'peter' comes right up out of his chair at the mention of religion/christianity?      These luciferians cannot restrain there WHITE-HOT HATRED of christianity. It always amazes me and sends up the red- flag!!!

to be fair, he seemed jumpy about almost everything.  I thought he was the most pissed off when AJ played the clip from the HG Wells movie.  He was really pissed off and knew the jig was up.  He tried hard to act like it did not matter, but it was right in your face truth.

[Geolibertarian]

to be fair, he seemed jumpy about almost everything.  I thought he was the most pissed off when AJ played the clip from the HG Wells movie.  He was really pissed off and knew the jig was up.  He tried hard to act like it did not matter, but it was right in your face truth.

As I suggested before, he may not be fully aware of what the "jig" even is, so perhaps his anger was the anger a person feels when he is made to sense, deep down, that he unwittingly allowed himself to be duped into serving an evil agenda he actually opposes.

Take Freemasonry, for instance. As Alex and others have often said, the vast majority of Freemasons are exposed only to the outermost layers of their organization, while believing all the while they've been exposed to the innermost layers. (A family member of mine is a "Worshipful Master," so I know this from first hand experience.) This is why they're not putting on an act when they deny that there's anything sinister about Freemasonry, but are expressing a sincere belief.

Human psychology being what it is, it is therefore a virtual given that they will feel resentment toward anyone who makes them start to realize what they're actually part of. They'll immediately go into "denial" mode, and become increasingly hostile if you continue to press the issue. Sort of like the denial that a housewife goes into the first time someone tries to gently inform her that her husband has been molesting her 12-year-old daughter from a previous marriage.

Now, I don't know if that was the source of Peter's anger or not, but until I know more, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, while leaving open the possibility that he is, indeed, fully aware.

I think if everyone else had taken this same levelheaded approach, there would not have been so much hostility generated these past few days.

[37]

[Dok]

If you can find the publisher, it should say Lucifer publishing company. It was later renamed Lucis Trust publishing company. And Lucis Trust publishes most U.N. material.

The Lucis Trust

 The Lucis Trust is the Publishing House which prints and disseminates United Nations material. It is a devastating indictment of the New Age and Pagan nature of the UN. Lucis Trust was established in 1922 as Lucifer Trust by Alice Bailey as the publishing company to disseminate the books of Bailey and Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society. The title page of Alice Bailey's book, 'Initiation, Human and Solar' was originally printed in 1922, and clearly shows the publishing house as 'Lucifer Publishing CoIn 1923. Bailey changed the name to Lucis Trust, because Lucifer Trust revealed the true nature of the New Age Movement too clearly. (Constance Cumbey, The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, p. 49). A quick trip to any New Age bookstore will reveal that many of the hard-core New Age books are published by Lucis Trust.

At one time, the Lucis Trust office in New York was located at 666 United Nations Plaza and is a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under a slick program called "World Goodwill". In an Alice Bailey book called "Education for a New Age"; she suggests that in the new age "World Citizenship should be the goal of the enlightened, with a world federation and a world brain." In other words - a One World Government New World Order.

Luci's Trust is sponsored by among others Robert McNamara, former minister of Defence in the USA, president of the World Bank, member of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Thomas Watson (IBM, former ambassador in Moscow). Luci's Trust sponsors among others the following organizations: UN, Greenpeace Int., Greenpeace USA, Amnesty Int. and UNICEF.

The United Nations has long been one of the foremost world harbingers for the "New Spirituality" and the gathering "New World Order" based on ancient occult and freemasonic principles. Seven years after the birth of the UN, a book was published by the theosophist and founder of the Lucis Trust, Alice Bailey, claiming that "Evidence of the growth of the human intellect along the needed receptive lines [for the preparation of the New Age] can be seen in the "planning" of various nations and in the efforts of the United Nations to formulate a world plan... From the very start of this unfoldment, three occult factors have governed the development of all these plans". [Alice B. Bailey, Discipleship in the New Age (Lucis Press, 1955), Vol. II, p.35.]

Although she did not spell out clearly the identity of these 'three occult factors', she did reveal to her students that "Within the United Nations is the germ and seed of a great international and meditating, reflective group - a group of thinking and informed men and women in whose hands lies the destiny of humanity. This is largely under the control of many fourth ray disciples, if you could but realise it, and their point of meditative focus is the intuitional or Buddhic plane - the plane upon which all hierarchical activity is today to be found'. [Ibid. p.220.]

To this end, the Lucis Trust, under the leadership of Foster and Alice Bailey, started a group called 'World Goodwill' - an official non-governmental organization within the United Nations. The stated aim of this group is "to cooperate in the world of preparation for the reappearance of the Christ" [One Earth, the magazine of the Findhorn Foundation, October/November 1986, Vol. 6, Issue 6, p.24.]

But the esoteric work inside the UN does not stop with such recognized occult groupings. Much of the impetus for this process was initiated through the officership of two Secretary-Generals of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld (held office: 1953-1961) and U Thant (held office: 1961-1971) who succeeded him, and one Assistant Secretary-general, Dr. Robert Muller. In a book written to celebrate the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin (and edited by Robert Muller), it is revealed "Dag Hammarskjöld, the rational Nordic economist, had ended up as a mystic. He too held at the end of his life that spirituality was the ultimate key to our earthly fate in time and space". [Robert Muller (ed.), The Desire to be Human: A Global Reconnaissance of Human Perspectives in an Age of Transformation (Miranana, 1983), p.304.]

Sri Chinmoy, the New Age guru, meditation leader at the UN, wrote: "the United Nations is the chosen instrument of God; to be a chosen instrument means to be a divine messenger carrying the banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation."

William Jasper, author of "A New World Religion" describes the religion of the UN: "...a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism atheism, communism, socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism".

[Dig]

If you can find the publisher, it should say Lucifer publishing company. It was later renamed Lucis Trust publishing company. And Lucis Trust publishes most U.N. material.

The Lucis Trust

 The Lucis Trust is the Publishing House which prints and disseminates United Nations material. It is a devastating indictment of the New Age and Pagan nature of the UN. Lucis Trust was established in 1922 as Lucifer Trust by Alice Bailey as the publishing company to disseminate the books of Bailey and Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society. The title page of Alice Bailey's book, 'Initiation, Human and Solar' was originally printed in 1922, and clearly shows the publishing house as 'Lucifer Publishing CoIn 1923. Bailey changed the name to Lucis Trust, because Lucifer Trust revealed the true nature of the New Age Movement too clearly. (Constance Cumbey, The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, p. 49). A quick trip to any New Age bookstore will reveal that many of the hard-core New Age books are published by Lucis Trust.

At one time, the Lucis Trust office in New York was located at 666 United Nations Plaza and is a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under a slick program called "World Goodwill". In an Alice Bailey book called "Education for a New Age"; she suggests that in the new age "World Citizenship should be the goal of the enlightened, with a world federation and a world brain." In other words - a One World Government New World Order.

Luci's Trust is sponsored by among others Robert McNamara, former minister of Defence in the USA, president of the World Bank, member of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Thomas Watson (IBM, former ambassador in Moscow). Luci's Trust sponsors among others the following organizations: UN, Greenpeace Int., Greenpeace USA, Amnesty Int. and UNICEF.

The United Nations has long been one of the foremost world harbingers for the "New Spirituality" and the gathering "New World Order" based on ancient occult and freemasonic principles. Seven years after the birth of the UN, a book was published by the theosophist and founder of the Lucis Trust, Alice Bailey, claiming that "Evidence of the growth of the human intellect along the needed receptive lines [for the preparation of the New Age] can be seen in the "planning" of various nations and in the efforts of the United Nations to formulate a world plan... From the very start of this unfoldment, three occult factors have governed the development of all these plans". [Alice B. Bailey, Discipleship in the New Age (Lucis Press, 1955), Vol. II, p.35.]

Although she did not spell out clearly the identity of these 'three occult factors', she did reveal to her students that "Within the United Nations is the germ and seed of a great international and meditating, reflective group - a group of thinking and informed men and women in whose hands lies the destiny of humanity. This is largely under the control of many fourth ray disciples, if you could but realise it, and their point of meditative focus is the intuitional or Buddhic plane - the plane upon which all hierarchical activity is today to be found'. [Ibid. p.220.]

To this end, the Lucis Trust, under the leadership of Foster and Alice Bailey, started a group called 'World Goodwill' - an official non-governmental organization within the United Nations. The stated aim of this group is "to cooperate in the world of preparation for the reappearance of the Christ" [One Earth, the magazine of the Findhorn Foundation, October/November 1986, Vol. 6, Issue 6, p.24.]

But the esoteric work inside the UN does not stop with such recognized occult groupings. Much of the impetus for this process was initiated through the officership of two Secretary-Generals of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld (held office: 1953-1961) and U Thant (held office: 1961-1971) who succeeded him, and one Assistant Secretary-general, Dr. Robert Muller. In a book written to celebrate the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin (and edited by Robert Muller), it is revealed "Dag Hammarskjöld, the rational Nordic economist, had ended up as a mystic. He too held at the end of his life that spirituality was the ultimate key to our earthly fate in time and space". [Robert Muller (ed.), The Desire to be Human: A Global Reconnaissance of Human Perspectives in an Age of Transformation (Miranana, 1983), p.304.]

Sri Chinmoy, the New Age guru, meditation leader at the UN, wrote: "the United Nations is the chosen instrument of God; to be a chosen instrument means to be a divine messenger carrying the banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation."

William Jasper, author of "A New World Religion" describes the religion of the UN: "...a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism atheism, communism, socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism".

You have got to be f**king shitting me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The more people scratch the surface of this thing, the more NWO slime comes out!

[Dok]

Ya can't make that stuff up. Theosophy is the UN religion. You should see what Robert Muller has done to our education system.

[Dig]

As I suggested before, he may not be fully aware of what the "jig" even is, so perhaps his anger was the anger a person feels when he is made to sense, deep down, that he unwittingly allowed himself to be duped into serving an evil agenda he actually opposes.

Take Freemasonry, for instance. As Alex and others have often said, the vast majority of Freemasons are exposed only to the outermost layers of their organization, while believing all the while they've been exposed to the innermost layers. (A family member of mine is a "Worshipful Master," so I know this from first hand experience.) This is why they're not putting on an act when they deny that there's anything sinister about Freemasonry, but are expressing a sincere belief.

Human psychology being what it is, it is therefore a virtual given that they will feel resentment toward anyone who makes them start to realize what they're actually part of. They'll immediately go into "denial" mode, and become increasingly hostile if you continue to press the issue. Sort of like the denial that a housewife goes into the first time someone tries to gently inform her that her husband has been molesting her 12-year-old daughter from a previous marriage.

Now, I don't know if that was the source of Peter's anger or not, but until I know more, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, while leaving open the possibility that he is, indeed, fully aware.

I think if everyone else had taken this same levelheaded approach, there would not have been so much hostility generated these past few days.

Before the interview, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. After the first time listening, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

After 6 times listening to the interview, he is so fricking pompous, arrogant, and highly intelligent it makes it increasingly difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Dok]

McCain/Obama spar over commitment to eradicate
undead menace
Posted: July 6th. 2008

Amongst accusations of 'flip flopping' by either side, it seems the question of who can handle the undead threat most effectively has finally taken the forefront of the battle for the presidency of the USA.

Up until now, neither side has been willing to make a central issue of the world wide threat of an advancing 'Necro-Mortosis' plague. However, the McCain camp fired the first salvo at a meeting with local farmers in Idaho this weekend. When asked "who will protect us best from the necro's?" by an elderly concerned lady, McCain responded "The fine American people of this country deserve a president who has a plan and who will stick to it. A president who will not change course. Senator Obama is on record as voting against the bill for assault of May, 2007."

The bill in question was a controversial amendment introduced by Republicans but had many co sponsors and bi partisan support. It stated that anyone who was attacked by a possible reanimate could be tested for the mortosis virus. Consent was not required.

The bill quietly passed during a special late night session of congress in 2007

The Obama camp came back swinging with accusations that McCain himself supported a recent controversial bill that re appropriated government funds earmarked for Home Securities. And reduce grant funds for major urban areas in the US.

Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser said. "The position of [McCain's] campaign is that words do matter, and Sen. Obama's words have left a significant question as to exactly what he intends." Scheunemann said Sunday in a conference call with reporters.

It seems clear that by these two early skirmishes that the undead presence in many parts of the world will be a major concern to the US voting public.

A recent ZWN poll suggests that the economy is still #1 concern, The undead threat is#2, terrorist threats and the war in Iraq are #3 followed by the environment at #4.

A separate ZWN poll suggests that Mccain has a slight edge in the polls when it comes to security issue with 46% favoring McCain over 42% Obama. However, Obama still has a strong lead in domestic issues.

[Arkaleus]

After careful review of both Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum, I eagerly awaited Alex's interview of Peter Joseph.  I had to meet the mind that gave us these courageous works, even if I didn't agree with some of their views.  I must congratulate Alex on giving us as much time as he did without going off into tantrum tangents so we could actually make some sense of what Mr. Joseph was trying to tell the world.

Zeitgeist: The Movie was loaded with arguments whose time has come.  Liberty-minded folks today already knew that religion is not what it claims to be, and there is much distrust of it among patriots and intellectuals.  There's a good reason for this distrust:  Religious tyranny is about the most odious kind there is, because it is based in nothing but the enforced beliefs of a dominant group. 

What has been missing in Western thought for 2000 years is the complete story of comparative religion that only modern anthropology and the Internet has made accessible.  The origin of Gods and how men create them is a constant throughout history, and to understand this human behavior is necessary for a mind's education in truth and liberty.  To demystify the Solar Myth and to understand its effect on the religions of man was a mind-healing revelation that goes a long way from the mentally damaging lies and spirit-abusing dogmas we in the West were force fed as children. 

I noticed something about the way Mr. Joseph presents his case about the origin of Christianity that has so far escaped the notice of other reviews I have read.  His arguments seem more Gnostic than atheist, and this is a very crucial difference.  Mr. Joseph explicitly states the Gnostic origin of the deification of Jesus Christ as the reason why Jesus Christ was repackaged to the world as the new solar deity for the new age that was upon the world, the age of Pisces.  This brilliant observation of astro-anthropology is one of many recent insights into how human beings have shaped their myths and structured their religions.  Early works by Graham Hancock made similar insights about how mankind related to the movements of the heavens.  (This is before, of course, he blew his mind with South American voodoo)

It was clear that Mr. Joseph was not attacking Christianity, or any other religion, but was showing us that the mystical power we have attributed to our faith has been used against us by those seeking power over the masses.  In fact, the original form of tyranny over men was religion and those who perpetuated its myths.  This is not to say that Jesus wasn't a real person, or that enlightened prophets never existed, because I don't think anyone can say this.  Mr. Joseph tellingly revealed that he agreed with many of the things the "character" of Jesus said. 

Anyone who has studied Gnosticism will immediately see what Mr. Joseph has done.  I suspect that Mr. Joseph has studied the Gnostic writings for himself, and has become a modern day iconoclast.  I applaud him for this, as the images of faith are particularly debilitating for Americans who are struggling to wake up from their trance of consumption and false belief.  Jesus was by all accounts an ascetic, unmarried communist, not at all resembling the typical Christian of middle America today. 

This gnostic revelation, combined with the timing of the political and economic situation are powerful convergences that just happen to coincide with the end of the age of Pisces.  Every age before us has been marked by a new "birth", a new permutation of the solar myth.  Whether or not modern man will repeat this cycle by 2150 and the start of the age of Aquarius is not clear, but I disagree with Mr. Joseph about how useful this myth structure is.

I feel very strongly that most human beings function better when shaped by myth, and this is why the wise organizing minds created them.  I argue that we have an inalienable right to create and worship the gods of our choice.  It is a sad truth that only a few minds become sound enough to understand the cosmos without resorting to myths, but it is absolutely wrong to force everyone into a scientific atheism.  It is harmful to the ability of unintellectual people to produce good to do so.  Without the voluntary myths of religion, the unintellectual people are forced into the involuntary myths of authority and state.  Liberty demands that Intellectual and Wise restrain themselves and govern in accord with the benevolent good, and not attempt to ensnare the less developed minds of their neighbors merely because they happen to understand the universe better than they. 

This brings me to my second observation of both Zeitgeist films.  Mr. Joseph has somehow (and most regrettably) been poisoned by the intoxicating vice of the 19th and 20th centuries:  Marxism.  I don't know how this still occurs in America today, I can only suspect Mr. Joseph had an older mentor who was still peddling this vile mental illness in his waning years. 

Thought it was hard to listen to Alex's childish tantrums when they argued about the scientific socialism presented in Zeitgeist Addendum, I realized Alex was quite right to feel threatened by this ideology.  He knows as well as we do that the central tenants of Marxism are identical to the pseudo-liberation offered by the “Venus Project”.  A population without any government living in complete abundance in the pursuit of peaceful intellectual projects is clearly revealed in the Communist Manifesto as the end goal of the Marxist Revolution. 

Joseph's claim that all of man's bad behaviors is caused by conditioning in an environment of scarcity is as absurd as his denial of the existence of good and evil.  Let me first focus on his view of good and evil.  Good and evil are conceptual constructions.  They do not “exist” like rocks or iron.  However It is the right of human beings to define good and evil as they see fit, and this is extremely important for us to do. 

Good and evil are understood and accepted as standards of judgment and serve to help protect us from harm and abuse by others in society.  It's true that standards sometimes vary between cultures, but there are some standards which are anthropologically universal and can be found across all cultures and eras.  Our survival and success as a social species utterly depends on having just standards; suppression of “evil” things and the promotion of “good” things enables us to exist within the mean peace and plenty.  Without this standard, we revert to the animal laws of will and appetite. 

To deprive men of their right to establish identity and discernment between good and evil is a insidious and intellectually dishonest attempt to disarm our psyche.  What should be promoted is the establishment of proper judgment based on truth and liberty, which is why I so applaud the revelation of religion as a astrological mythos.  Standards rooted in religion need to be squared against what we have learned by reason and science, and the power of religions should be suppressed in civil society.  America has done this well and Liberty was the result.

I hope that Peter Joseph continues in his education and inquiries, and comes to confront and overcome the poisonous intellectual corruptions that have somehow oozed out of the 20th century and into his ideology.  What he proposes is that we liberate ourselves from lies and slavery, only to submit ourselves to the masters of machinery and the “benevolent” keepers of the dome cities he sees gleaming in our future. 

Keep up the fight!

[Rock]

After careful review of both Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum, I eagerly awaited Alex's interview of Peter Joseph.  I had to meet the mind that gave us these courageous works, even if I didn't agree with some of their views.  I must congratulate Alex on giving us as much time as he did without going off into tantrum tangents so we could actually make some sense of what Mr. Joseph was trying to tell the world.

Zeitgeist: The Movie was loaded with arguments whose time has come.  Liberty-minded folks today already knew that religion is not what it claims to be, and there is much distrust of it among patriots and intellectuals.  There's a good reason for this distrust:  Religious tyranny is about the most odious kind there is, because it is based in nothing but the enforced beliefs of a dominant group. 

What has been missing in Western thought for 2000 years is the complete story of comparative religion that only modern anthropology and the Internet has made accessible.  The origin of Gods and how men create them is a constant throughout history, and to understand this human behavior is necessary for a mind's education in truth and liberty.  To demystify the Solar Myth and to understand its effect on the religions of man was a mind-healing revelation that goes a long way from the mentally damaging lies and spirit-abusing dogmas we in the West were force fed as children. 

I noticed something about the way Mr. Joseph presents his case about the origin of Christianity that has so far escaped the notice of other reviews I have read.  His arguments seem more Gnostic than atheist, and this is a very crucial difference.  Mr. Joseph explicitly states the Gnostic origin of the deification of Jesus Christ as the reason why Jesus Christ was repackaged to the world as the new solar deity for the new age that was upon the world, the age of Pisces.  This brilliant observation of astro-anthropology is one of many recent insights into how human beings have shaped their myths and structured their religions.  Early works by Graham Hancock made similar insights about how mankind related to the movements of the heavens.  (This is before, of course, he blew his mind with South American voodoo)

It was clear that Mr. Joseph was not attacking Christianity, or any other religion, but was showing us that the mystical power we have attributed to our faith has been used against us by those seeking power over the masses.  In fact, the original form of tyranny over men was religion and those who perpetuated its myths.  This is not to say that Jesus wasn't a real person, or that enlightened prophets never existed, because I don't think anyone can say this.  Mr. Joseph tellingly revealed that he agreed with many of the things the "character" of Jesus said. 

Anyone who has studied Gnosticism will immediately see what Mr. Joseph has done.  I suspect that Mr. Joseph has studied the Gnostic writings for himself, and has become a modern day iconoclast.  I applaud him for this, as the images of faith are particularly debilitating for Americans who are struggling to wake up from their trance of consumption and false belief.  Jesus was by all accounts an ascetic, unmarried communist, not at all resembling the typical Christian of middle America today. 

This gnostic revelation, combined with the timing of the political and economic situation are powerful convergences that just happen to coincide with the end of the age of Pisces.  Every age before us has been marked by a new "birth", a new permutation of the solar myth.  Whether or not modern man will repeat this cycle by 2150 and the start of the age of Aquarius is not clear, but I disagree with Mr. Joseph about how useful this myth structure is.

I feel very strongly that most human beings function better when shaped by myth, and this is why the wise organizing minds created them.  I argue that we have an inalienable right to create and worship the gods of our choice.  It is a sad truth that only a few minds become sound enough to understand the cosmos without resorting to myths, but it is absolutely wrong to force everyone into a scientific atheism.  It is harmful to the ability of unintellectual people to produce good to do so.  Without the voluntary myths of religion, the unintellectual people are forced into the involuntary myths of authority and state.  Liberty demands that Intellectual and Wise restrain themselves and govern in accord with the benevolent good, and not attempt to ensnare the less developed minds of their neighbors merely because they happen to understand the universe better than they. 

This brings me to my second observation of both Zeitgeist films.  Mr. Joseph has somehow (and most regrettably) been poisoned by the intoxicating vice of the 19th and 20th centuries:  Marxism.  I don't know how this still occurs in America today, I can only suspect Mr. Joseph had an older mentor who was still peddling this vile mental illness in his waning years. 

Thought it was hard to listen to Alex's childish tantrums when they argued about the scientific socialism presented in Zeitgeist Addendum, I realized Alex was quite right to feel threatened by this ideology.  He knows as well as we do that the central tenants of Marxism are identical to the pseudo-liberation offered by the “Venus Project”.  A population without any government living in complete abundance in the pursuit of peaceful intellectual projects is clearly revealed in the Communist Manifesto as the end goal of the Marxist Revolution. 

Joseph's claim that all of man's bad behaviors is caused by conditioning in an environment of scarcity is as absurd as his denial of the existence of good and evil.  Let me first focus on his view of good and evil.  Good and evil are conceptual constructions.  They do not “exist” like rocks or iron.  However It is the right of human beings to define good and evil as they see fit, and this is extremely important for us to do. 

Good and evil are understood and accepted as standards of judgment and serve to help protect us from harm and abuse by others in society.  It's true that standards sometimes vary between cultures, but there are some standards which are anthropologically universal and can be found across all cultures and eras.  Our survival and success as a social species utterly depends on having just standards; suppression of “evil” things and the promotion of “good” things enables us to exist within the mean peace and plenty.  Without this standard, we revert to the animal laws of will and appetite. 

To deprive men of their right to establish identity and discernment between good and evil is a insidious and intellectually dishonest attempt to disarm our psyche.  What should be promoted is the establishment of proper judgment based on truth and liberty, which is why I so applaud the revelation of religion as a astrological mythos.  Standards rooted in religion need to be squared against what we have learned by reason and science, and the power of religions should be suppressed in civil society.  America has done this well and Liberty was the result.

I hope that Peter Joseph continues in his education and inquiries, and comes to confront and overcome the poisonous intellectual corruptions that have somehow oozed out of the 20th century and into his ideology.  What he proposes is that we liberate ourselves from lies and slavery, only to submit ourselves to the masters of machinery and the “benevolent” keepers of the dome cities he sees gleaming in our future. 

Keep up the fight!

Finally, another person who makes sense.  So many good posts lately on this subject.  Good job.

[Rock]

Ya can't make that stuff up. Theosophy is the UN religion. You should see what Robert Muller has done to our education system.

I think this is the state religion that we all feared would rear it's ugly head some day.  It's a religion of technical spirituality, yet it snares it's audience into blind faith into the NWO.  The only way this faith could become a reality is if 6.5 billion of us die, and 500,000 are left and concede to this Utopian philosophy.  But that would not happen, because the elites will control the outcome.



Rock

[Alias1975]

Speaking for myself my criticism was more of how Alex handled the interview with PJ, and reading this thread which started out as a thread for that interview most of the criticism was of how Alex behaved rather than supporting wholesale what the 2nd Zeitgeist film talks about. It seems that during the course of the thread anybody that criticised Alex has been labeled a supporter of the Zeitgeist films which certainly isn't true of myself and id imagine the majority of people that posted criticisms of Alex on this thread.

I think Alex was poorly prepared and acted very childishly, he admitted himself the next day that he wasn't properly prepared to interview PJ and it made for a poor interview. There are some very genuine concerns about the 2nd film in particular but Alex didn't raise hardly any of these points during the interview and instead resorted to being pretty juvenile. Alex isn't the greatest interviewer, because he has so much knowledge he very often butts in and doesn't let his guests finish they're train of thought, I would have liked to hear PJ answer many of the questions raised on this thread, but they either weren't asked or he wasn't given the chance to state his position without Alex butting in.

Every day Alex talks about meat and potato issues, and its important that we understand these things but i also think theres much more to understanding the whole picture than meat and potato issues. Thats why i think its important people like PJ and David Icke are given a platform to present views that are maybe more out there but just as important none the less. I think the key to changing the world starts and ends with ourselves we all have that responsibility to educate ourselves not only on the meat and potato issues but on more spiritual subjects so we can fully understand how we are controlled in so many ways and try to break free of those labels and controls.
 

But if we start labeling somebody a NWO shill as soon as they start talking in a more idealistic way we're never going to break free of the controls that limit our potential by immediately dismissing any idea that sounds too good to be true.

[Dig]

This thread is nominated as funniest of all time.

[Novus Ordo]

like this bit very much...

"I feel very strongly that most human beings function better when shaped by myth, and this is why the wise organizing minds created them.  I argue that we have an inalienable right to create and worship the gods of our choice.  It is a sad truth that only a few minds become sound enough to understand the cosmos without resorting to myths, but it is absolutely wrong to force everyone into a scientific atheism.  It is harmful to the ability of unintellectual people to produce good to do so.  Without the voluntary myths of religion, the unintellectual people are forced into the involuntary myths of authority and state.  Liberty demands that Intellectual and Wise restrain themselves and govern in accord with the benevolent good, and not attempt to ensnare the less developed minds of their neighbors merely because they happen to understand the universe better than they. "

(Shame the 'big cull' can’t be IQ based)

[Rock]

Speaking for myself my criticism was more of how Alex handled the interview with PJ, and reading this thread which started out as a thread for that interview most of the criticism was of how Alex behaved rather than supporting wholesale what the 2nd Zeitgeist film talks about. It seems that during the course of the thread anybody that criticised Alex has been labeled a supporter of the Zeitgeist films which certainly isn't true of myself and id imagine the majority of people that posted criticisms of Alex on this thread.

I think Alex was poorly prepared and acted very childishly, he admitted himself the next day that he wasn't properly prepared to interview PJ and it made for a poor interview. There are some very genuine concerns about the 2nd film in particular but Alex didn't raise hardly any of these points during the interview and instead resorted to being pretty juvenile. Alex isn't the greatest interviewer, because he has so much knowledge he very often butts in and doesn't let his guests finish they're train of thought, I would have liked to hear PJ answer many of the questions raised on this thread, but they either weren't asked or he wasn't given the chance to state his position without Alex butting in.

Every day Alex talks about meat and potato issues, and its important that we understand these things but i also think theres much more to understanding the whole picture than meat and potato issues. Thats why i think its important people like PJ and David Icke are given a platform to present views that are maybe more out there but just as important none the less. I think the key to changing the world starts and ends with ourselves we all have that responsibility to educate ourselves not only on the meat and potato issues but on more spiritual subjects so we can fully understand how we are controlled in so many ways and try to break free of those labels and controls.
 

But if we start labeling somebody a NWO shill as soon as they start talking in a more idealistic way we're never going to break free of the controls that limit our potential by immediately dismissing any idea that sounds too good to be true.

I appreciate your opinion.  And if you feel he was over the top, ok.  But don't we like listening to Alex because he is on the edge?  His passion?

It is rude to cut people off, but since I have been listening to AJ that has been the status quo.  He did that to Paul Craig Roberts and Paul chewed him a good one!  "shut the hell up ALex!"  And Alex laughed because he knew he got set straight by a man he admires.

So, if Alex is going to cut off his friends train of thought, will he not do it to people he disagrees with.

At what point did some believe he would be cordial and Gentile, and let someone speak uninterrupted during in interview?

People can always change the channel.  Yet, we can't because we just don't know what he will say next.


As regards the NWO shill.   We know who those people are, and it is not by giving a opinion.

Rock

[Dig]

like this bit very much...

"I feel very strongly that most human beings function better when shaped by myth, and this is why the wise organizing minds created them.  I argue that we have an inalienable right to create and worship the gods of our choice.  It is a sad truth that only a few minds become sound enough to understand the cosmos without resorting to myths, but it is absolutely wrong to force everyone into a scientific atheism.  It is harmful to the ability of unintellectual people to produce good to do so.  Without the voluntary myths of religion, the unintellectual people are forced into the involuntary myths of authority and state.  Liberty demands that Intellectual and Wise restrain themselves and govern in accord with the benevolent good, and not attempt to ensnare the less developed minds of their neighbors merely because they happen to understand the universe better than they. "

(Shame the 'big cull' can’t be IQ based)

While I guess that is better than "f all those that wish to have their own religion, we will re-educate them."  It is still quite condescending.  I like what George Washington said:

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. [George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]

[37]

These people love to play word games.  Notice the Magazine cover says "Lucifer is no profane or satanic title".

According to Jeffrey Burton Russell in his book The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, "Christian tradition...firmly identified the Devil both with the serpent of Genesis and with Lucifer."

But, look at the personage described in the christian version of the Book of Isiah.

Isa 14:12     How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13    For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14    I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15    Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Isa 14:16    They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Isa 14:17    [That] made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; [that] opened not the house of his prisoners?
Isa 14:18    All the kings of the nations, [even] all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
Isa 14:19    But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, [and as] the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
Isa 14:20    Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, [and] slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

This Lucifer is a man who destroys civilization.  He destroys cities.  And he has no mercy for his prisoners.  He is also arrogant and wants to control everything...even heaven and the stars.

Even if you look at the story from an astrological point of view, it is saying that Venus tries to pass itself off as the sun.  But, when the sun arrives, Venus is blotted out and punished for its arrogance.  It is the false sun, and its light is inferior to that of the sun.

So, Blavatsky is lying. Lucifer is not some personage of great insight or illumination...he is an arrogant, merciless, tyrant.  He is false strength...a liar.


Consider the parable Krishnamurti gave when he publicly  separated himself from Theosophy.  The devil he describes is also rather arrogant.

Krishnamurti's devil is unafraid of the truth because he will organize the man's understanding of that truth. This version of the devil believes that he can confuse the man's understanding of truth.  His confidence is implied, but obvious.   

Until his death Krishnamurti traveled around the world trying to reorganize how men perceive reality.  And, how arrogant is a man who travels the world teaching his own opinion?  His foundation runs a K-12 school.  Founded by a man who condemned modes of control.  A man who believed there is "no path to truth"...Except the path from Kindergarten to Graduation at the Oak Grove School... http://www.kfa.org/education.php

The youth education environment as potential for transformative change continues to be a primary interest around the globe, as countries face the need for less fragmented and divisive leadership. Schools that put a high priority on diversity, global stewardship, and an understanding of how to explore will be increasingly valued...

The Oak Grove School of the Krishnamurti Foundation of America has the potential to take a leadership role in America, both as a small school model incorporating the principles of diversity, sustainability, and environmental stewardship in its core curriculum; and as a model of a holistic educational environment in which relationship is the pivotal dynamic for learning.

The perfect model of the One World School System!

he is so fricking pompous, arrogant, and highly intelligent it makes it increasingly difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sounds like a true theosophist in the making.


 

[Rock]

While I guess that is better than "f all those that wish to have their own religion, we will re-educate them."  It is still quite condescending.  I like what George Washington said:

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. [George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]

Holy Crap!  "The undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters"

Man.........I want those guy's back.  Real Men!  


Rock

[Rock]

The perfect model of the One World School System!
 

Thanks for the insight and warning Dude.




Rock

[GermanWarrior]

Zeitgeist Addendum preaches illuminati communism

Unrealistic "Venus" fantasy system of the Theosophists is the road to enslavement

Alexander Benesch
www.infokrieg.tv
October 18th 2008


With the recently released sequel "Zeitgeist Addendum" you realize that the first movie was there to soften up the audience for the long con. It preaches illuminati communism from start to finish and is a text book example of COINTELPRO activity to undermine legitimate movements.

My own great-grandfather was a German who went to Russia and bred horses there. He was put into a gulag camp after the "revolution" that supposedly happened to create a utopia where no classes exist and the state "withers away". Now Zeitgeist Addendum tells us that the military/banking industrial complex is actually free market and we must only rid our society of money, decentralized enterprise and spirituality to achieve a world of pure justice and abundance. A contradictory, wholly unrealistic phantasy system called "Venus Project" is being advertised while
critics are met not with legitimate counter arguments but with blunt accusations of intellectual shortcomings and block-headed religious faith. Now that Peter Joseph has shown his true colors by promoting the Theosophic Society, a key front group of the occult illuminati religion, through the so-called "global messiah" we know that the talk of atheism was simply a charade.

A few kilometers from where I live is the city of Ingolstadt, where the different new world order front groups played their good cop / bad cop routine before. The Vatican arm of the new world order publicly demonized science and progress while the Illuminati of Bavaria under the leadership of Adam Weishaupt approached the young educated talents and said: We're the alternative, join us and we will secretly work to eradicate christianity, the classes and create world peace.

Like any garden variety cult leader, Peter Joseph simply kept repeating his points in a hypnotist's fashion during the interview on the Alex Jones Show. Here's a news flash for those stuck in this trance: You CAN have a fair money system. Fair money is only a service to facilitate trade. If you forbid money, you forbid decentralised free trade and ownership. How do you enforce a ban of money when people would certainly try to create new currencies? One would need surveillance and punishments. But Peter Joseph would deny that and say over and over that this could be done peacefully through a "change of consciousness". Only when Alex pressed him did he slip up and and mention "reconditioning", "reeducation", which are of course euphemisms for communist
brainwashing. The people cannot effectively trade without money, so without money there would emerge either a primitive economy where only goods are exchanged or a central government with a planned economy.

The so-called third alternative, the "resource based economy" is a fraud because it is nothing more than a fantasy. Peter Joseph tried hard to avoid answering the question of who would make the decisions and how they would be enforced. He would have had to admit that any attempt to create this new system would totally contradict his slogan of abolishing classes and competition.

He also wants to take peoples right to own guns. Another example of those gurus talking down to us like to a bunch of children. These people and their new age leftwing gullible followers want to simply remove guns from the population. How could you remove something from the population that can be built with moderate skills in somebodys workshop with few tools and materials? Only with total surveillance and control. But then you have a police state.

Peter Joseph and the other cranks also promise to eradicate scarcity. Whereas Alex constantly exposes artificial scarcity scams like peak oil and promotes individual empowerment, the new agers just deliver more empty promises that defy logic. Scarcity is relative and therefore universal. As soon as you crave something that you don't own or control, you feel there is a scarcity. Abundance is therefore relative too. Somebody might feel that what he owns could be classified as abundance, another person might regard this as not enough. Yes, we can mass produce things like washing machines, but we cannot mass produce for example certain pieces of property or certain people.

To use an example: In the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy" we see the story of an isolated african tribe in the Kalahari Desert where some pilot one day flies overhead and drops an empty coke bottle. The tribe lives in relative scarcity, scarcity by our standards. But the tribe members regard their lives as abundance: What they need or think they need is available in quantities that suffice. There's enough wood too make spears and so on. Then the tribe starts fighting over that coke bottle, there is a never before felt sense of scarcity. They cannot create and follow a set of laws to regulate the use of this popular item so they decide to get rid of it. An isolated tribe might get away with these self-imposed limitations but human society as a whole cannot eradicate competition. There's always going to be a situation like when the British came to the area that is today Saudi-Arabia, picked the strongest tribe and said: Here's the guns and the strategy, you will be our enforcement arm.

We have accepted our natural instincts and drives and have found ways to harness them. According to the Zeitgeist crowd however, competition is pure programming and can be eradicated.
People depend on their abilities to rank, to judge, to compare and to compete. It is the source of advancement and culture. The militant pseudoegalitarianism of Zeitgeist and the Venus Project appeals to people who want to somehow escape the basic demands of life. How many of these people are losers who don't want to make the effort to excel and rather want to drag everybody else down?

The Theosophists made their move with Zeitgeist Addendum and we are making ours now. Peter Joseph doesn't want his audience to really research the science of tyranny and deception where we have literally thousands of years of recorded history. We will not be conned.

[Rock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9shGVQ-9rQ



warning - Bad language

[squarepusher]

Look what I found on Wikipedia (this organization was started by Alice Bailey, writer of 'Externalization of the hierarchy'):

Lucis Trust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucis_Trust

The organization was originally called the "Lucifer Publishing Company".[6] However, the name "Lucis Trust" has been used from 1925. According to a statement on their website, the name "Lucifer" was used because, Bailey considered Lucifer, the fallen angel, a positive principle; as did, also, Helena Blavatsky[7].

The World Goodwill group, founded in 1932, is particularly important among Lucis Trust's activities, as it has been recognized by the United Nations as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), and is represented at regular briefing sessions at the United Nations in New York and Geneva. Lucis Trust is therefore a member of the UN Economic and Social Council.

It's pretty hard for me as an atheist to wrap my head around the idea that the UN is backing a NGO that believes in Lucifer the fallen angel. I first thought it was just sensationalism - no, turns out they actually believe in this stuff.

[Dok]

This thread is nominated as funniest of all time.

Thank you, just remeber to keep a bat or a crowbar (you can lead them around once you plant it in their heads) next to your bug out bag. 

[Dig]

Look what I found on Wikipedia (this organization was started by Alice Bailey, writer of 'Externalization of the hierarchy'):

Lucis Trust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucis_Trust

It's pretty hard for me as an atheist to wrap my head around the idea that the UN is backing a NGO that believes in Lucifer the fallen angel. I first thought it was just sensationalism - no, turns out they actually believe in this stuff.

Sorry dude, no one could even make this shit up.

Looks like we all have been Zeitgeisted.

Good thing we found out before carousel, er Z-Day.

[Double]

and Blavatsky (Hitler's spiritual mentor)'s work. 

Hitler was only 2 when Blavatsky died so there was no direct spiritual influence, which would be a mentor,
at least in one definition of the word.

And if the quote is true as its known Hitler did study to occult, he most certainly didn't follow Blavatsky's teachings very closely,
If anything he used parts of her writings to help with is own game plan.
Blavatsky writes about spiritual knowledge, more in depth then many other books i've read so far,
and what people do with that power is up to the reader.
It is just as valuable when used for benevolent purposes, and from my understanding of Blavatskys writings,
that is the way she meant it to be used.

Here is a good quote from Blavatsky stating what she new would be the reaction her Writing
would cause from various groups of people of her time. And come on, no matter what you think of about the writings of Blavatsky,
you have to admit that quote that I highlited below is one of the best descriptions of the press you've heard! lol
And it was written over 100 years ago, nothings change since then in that regard.

Blavatsky:

"The Christians, who will see that we question the evidences of the genuineness of their faith.

The Scientists, who will find their pretensions placed in the same bundle with those of the Roman Catholic Church for infallibility, and, in certain particulars, the sages and philosophers of the ancient world classed higher than they.

Pseudo-Scientists will, of course, denounce us furiously.

Broad Churchmen and Freethinkers will find that we do not accept what they do, but demand the recognition of the whole truth.

Men of letters and various authorities, who hide their real belief in deference to popular prejudices.

The mercenaries and parasites of the Press, who prostitute its more than royal power, and dishonor a noble profession, will find it easy to mock at things too wonderful for them to understand; for to them the price of a paragraph is more than the value of sincerity. From many will come honest criticism; from many -- cant. But we look to the future.

The contest now going on between the party of public conscience and the party of reaction, has already developed a healthier tone of thought. It will hardly fail to result ultimately in the overthrow of error and the triumph of Truth. We repeat again -- we are laboring for the brighter morrow.

And yet, when we consider the bitter opposition that we are called upon to face, who is better entitled than we upon entering the arena to write upon our shield the hail of the Roman gladiator to Caesar: MORITURUS TE SALUTAT! "

[tehowe]

I feel very strongly that most human beings function better when shaped by myth, and this is why the wise organizing minds created them.  I argue that we have an inalienable right to create and worship the gods of our choice.  It is a sad truth that only a few minds become sound enough to understand the cosmos without resorting to myths, but it is absolutely wrong to force everyone into a scientific atheism.  It is harmful to the ability of unintellectual people to produce good to do so.  Without the voluntary myths of religion, the unintellectual people are forced into the involuntary myths of authority and state.  Liberty demands that Intellectual and Wise restrain themselves and govern in accord with the benevolent good, and not attempt to ensnare the less developed minds of their neighbors merely because they happen to understand the universe better than they. 

While I appreciated and enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments, I really have to question what you meant by the above. You state that it was the sagacious minds that created the organizing myths of world religions, cosmology, and so forth. You then go on to say that buy-in to the myths is voluntary. History has shown that this is definitely not the case, and reflection on how most of us are inducted into them makes this a questionable assertion, at best.

My question to you - how is this different than the 'noble lie', as envisioned by Plato, Machiavelli, and Leo Strauss? You seem to be in accord with their positions on the need to pull the wool over the eyes of the citizenry in order to institute an organizing principle to society, and I can't let that go. I don't see the project of disseminating truth (as one sees it) as 'ensnarement'. In fact, I believe the common terms for this project are education and dialogue. Those, most assuredly, are voluntary and obviate the need for the kind of elitist gatekeepers of truth that are 'necessary' in the social principle outlined above. All minds have the potential to apprehend the truth though, as Morpheus observed, it may be unjust to make them see too late in life. Perhaps this is what you meant, Archaleus?

"So he said, "A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return.[...] His fellow citizens, however, despised him and sent a delegation after him to announce, 'We do not want this man to be our king."

[JTCoyoté]

Before the interview, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. After the first time listening, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

After 6 times listening to the interview, he is so fricking pompous, arrogant, and highly intelligent it makes it increasingly difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Heck, Buddy... I'm a relatively pompous, arrogant, old fart... but if this guy is intelligent, then I'm Albert "fricking" Einstein... He is a store front/sales minion... I give him only the benifit of "10 steps toward the door", and no more!

étoyoCTJ

"ruO ksat fo gnitaerc a tsilaicoS aciremA nac ylno deeccus
nehw esoht ohw dluow tsiser su evah neeb yllatot demrasid."
~haraS ydarB

[Arkaleus]

The Noble Lie is a utilitarian idea created by those who understand the human condition well enough to see how people create their own reality.  This concept is often abused by intelligent people to create systems of abuse and tyranny.  I strongly oppose any attempt of government or other civil authority to create a state mythos or dogma.  Plato was a elitist, though maybe benevolent, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist who suggested the usefulness of a flexible morality.  Leo Strauss thought very much like these former two, and perhaps saw no need for governments to obey the laws of the land to accomplish their will.  The common trait of all these men is the arrogance they had, and their willingness to do harm to others in order to accomplish their will.  

I understand there is a relationship between religion and government.  Religion is the earliest form of government, and often serves a useful purpose in regulating human behavior.  My ancestors also realized this relationship and sought to strictly segregate religion from civil authority.  The aim of education is to enable a mind to grow out of the myths and into the enlightenment of truth.  Obviously not all of us will grow this way.

What I do support is for there to be a mythos available for people to learn from.  I am aware of the shortcomings of human beings, and I also know that not all people will be able to become philosophers, or even understand the universe around them.  

Mythos gives unscientific people the ability to judge and relate their actions to a standard that they voluntarily accept.  No matter how tyrannical or oppressive an authority can be in enforcing a state religion or even state atheism, people will always choose internally what they believe.  That freedom must be respected and understood by us all.  

Essentially, I am for the freedom of all thought and information, and never for the enforced suppression of ideas, be they scientific or otherwise.  The most frustrating observation I make about Peter Joseph is that he is highly intelligent and compelling, but seems completely ignorant of the outcome of his ideology in true practice.  His ideas, if made real, would cause the brightest and most gifted among us to suffer the greatest, especially when they find themselves under the authority of the benevolent masters.  To maintain power, men will do evil, and from their lies and murders new dogmas would rise, new tyrannies, and the state of mankind would be worse than the world that was before it.  

I believe that part of developing into an "enlightened" person is understanding the proper relationship we must have with other living things.  This husbandry includes restraining our own desire to force our "superiority" on others.  They must grow at their own rate, and fulfill their own purpose.  Ensnarement is when those who have knowledge use it for their own gain, or to oppress their fellows.  Teaching truth is never a snare to others, but concealing it certainly is, and forcing others to march to your music is contrary to our cause of Liberty.

There are always gatekeepers and intelligentsia.  That is part of the human experience, and naturally these are the minds that guide us.  Sometimes they are wise and lead us well, other times they are wrong and we suffer for generations until we overcome their influence.  They occur naturally, every generation has them, and we need them to evolve.  

What we need is for there to be an open debate about what is best, what is right, and what is wrong.  We must allow all information to flow, for genius to appear and contribute, and for change to take place.  We cannot allow the building of pyramids, the creation of monoliths, or the sacrifice of our children to the molech of state.  

[lord edward coke]

to be fair, he seemed jumpy about almost everything.  I thought he was the most pissed off when AJ played the clip from the HG Wells movie.  He was really pissed off and knew the jig was up.  He tried hard to act like it did not matter, but it was right in your face truth.

Ten+ years ago Gary Kah  DOCUMNETED exactly this type insidious attack in The Demonic Roots of Globalism.
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/05/the-demonic-roo.html
http://us.altavista.com/web/results?tlb=1&fr=tb&kgs=0&ienc=utf8&q=the+demonic+roots+of+globalism

He documents there WHOLE game plan in this book and taught me something that i never knew before.
That the united nations has a prayer room and an obelisk that has extensive engravings of all these occultic symbols.
here is what is covered in the first chap.    http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=DemonRoots01   

[Dig]

Hitler was only 2 when Blavatsky died so there was no direct spiritual influence, which would be a mentor,
at least in one definition of the word.

And if the quote is true as its known Hitler did study to occult, he most certainly didn't follow Blavatsky's teachings very closely,
If anything he used parts of her writings to help with is own game plan.
Blavatsky writes about spiritual knowledge, more in depth then many other books i've read so far,
and what people do with that power is up to the reader.
It is just as valuable when used for benevolent purposes, and from my understanding of Blavatskys writings,
that is the way she meant it to be used.

Here is a good quote from Blavatsky stating what she new would be the reaction her Writing
would cause from various groups of people of her time. And come on, no matter what you think of about the writings of Blavatsky,
you have to admit that quote that I highlited below is one of the best descriptions of the press you've heard! lol
And it was written over 100 years ago, nothings change since then in that regard.

Blavatsky:

"The Christians, who will see that we question the evidences of the genuineness of their faith.

The Scientists, who will find their pretensions placed in the same bundle with those of the Roman Catholic Church for infallibility, and, in certain particulars, the sages and philosophers of the ancient world classed higher than they.

Pseudo-Scientists will, of course, denounce us furiously.

Broad Churchmen and Freethinkers will find that we do not accept what they do, but demand the recognition of the whole truth.

Men of letters and various authorities, who hide their real belief in deference to popular prejudices.

The mercenaries and parasites of the Press, who prostitute its more than royal power, and dishonor a noble profession, will find it easy to mock at things too wonderful for them to understand; for to them the price of a paragraph is more than the value of sincerity. From many will come honest criticism; from many -- cant. But we look to the future.

The contest now going on between the party of public conscience and the party of reaction, has already developed a healthier tone of thought. It will hardly fail to result ultimately in the overthrow of error and the triumph of Truth. We repeat again -- we are laboring for the brighter morrow.

And yet, when we consider the bitter opposition that we are called upon to face, who is better entitled than we upon entering the arena to write upon our shield the hail of the Roman gladiator to Caesar: MORITURUS TE SALUTAT! "

Oh man, OK, so this thread has now been turned into a "Blatasky Worship" thread?  WTF? I thought PJ was confused, now instead of saying he was mistaken, we have gone 180 degrees saying he is justified in his theospian worship because some of the rulers like Pike, Crowley, Bailey and Blatlasky were really, really cool.

[Dig]

Speaking for myself my criticism was more of how Alex handled the interview with PJ, and reading this thread which started out as a thread for that interview most of the criticism was of how Alex behaved rather than supporting wholesale what the 2nd Zeitgeist film talks about. It seems that during the course of the thread anybody that criticised Alex has been labeled a supporter of the Zeitgeist films which certainly isn't true of myself and id imagine the majority of people that posted criticisms of Alex on this thread.

I think Alex was poorly prepared and acted very childishly, he admitted himself the next day that he wasn't properly prepared to interview PJ and it made for a poor interview. There are some very genuine concerns about the 2nd film in particular but Alex didn't raise hardly any of these points during the interview and instead resorted to being pretty juvenile. Alex isn't the greatest interviewer, because he has so much knowledge he very often butts in and doesn't let his guests finish they're train of thought, I would have liked to hear PJ answer many of the questions raised on this thread, but they either weren't asked or he wasn't given the chance to state his position without Alex butting in.

Every day Alex talks about meat and potato issues, and its important that we understand these things but i also think theres much more to understanding the whole picture than meat and potato issues. Thats why i think its important people like PJ and David Icke are given a platform to present views that are maybe more out there but just as important none the less. I think the key to changing the world starts and ends with ourselves we all have that responsibility to educate ourselves not only on the meat and potato issues but on more spiritual subjects so we can fully understand how we are controlled in so many ways and try to break free of those labels and controls.
 

But if we start labeling somebody a NWO shill as soon as they start talking in a more idealistic way we're never going to break free of the controls that limit our potential by immediately dismissing any idea that sounds too good to be true.

I appreciate your thoughtful commentary, but again there are a few things that are inescapable...

After listening and watching the interview over 6 times, the comment (that has been proven to be a Z-Troll talking point) of AJ acting like a child is so confusing.  If AJ was acting like a child, then PJ was acting like a primie baby.   PJ was sighing, interjecting, avoiding, sticking his chest out with arrogant, ego controlled pomposity as if he was the declared ruler of z-world and all the other kids in this "lord of the flies" dystopia needed to be subservient.  Whenever AJ asked a simple question like, "what about the family?" PJ responded with such contempt as if to say, "why am I even bothering communicating with such barbarians."  I mean how many times have you listened to the interview?  And using AJ saying "I wish I was more prepared" the following day as some justification for the talking point also seems very confusing.  Of course AJ wishes he was more prepared, he is probably one of his greatest critics. This shows maturity and not childlike behaviour.  His obvious exposure of an NWO project before it really got off the ground was pretty amazing, but he did not slap himself on the back like a child might.  Instead he was critical of himself as he saw the threats to this great country so he spent additional time researching and uncovering the truth about it.  This is very adult behaviour and hardly child like.

The second Z-Troll talking point we have seen is the comparison of David Icke to PJ.  How the hell is David Icke anything like PJ?  David Icke has been fighting the NWO for decades (hope I am right).  He, like AJ and AW) is overly committed to bringing down the capstone.  He wants people to wake up to the innate evil within centralized power structures so that these structures will never exist again.  He has refined his message often and been on the front lines often.  He has agreed to focus his attention on targeting these power structures with AJ so that they can have more of an impact on freeing many of this insane matrix.  He also works on empowering individuals so that they do not follow any BS other centralized nonsense.  PJ does the opposite, he confuses the viewer with problem/reaction/solution stuff so that the solution he provides makes things even worse.  He never empowers the individual, he just talks down to the individual as if they were sheep.  He presents fanciful futurism nonsense to trick people into believing what is obviously false. I am sorry but I do not see them as the same.  David Icke promotes local, decentralized power and PJ promotes a one world super state that is all powerful and includes re-education of dissenters.

[Dig]

Concerning the abundance of Z-Trolls, I happened across the following old post (ain't accurate historical records great?) that may shed some light on the techniques:

===============================

From: Trade Mark http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=37724.msg181093#msg181093

The Delphi Technique — What Is It?

The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face.  In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose.  In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out."  The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123).  The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics).  This allows for a special application of a basic technique.

The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question.  The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on.  While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group.  S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate."  S/He dons his professional agitator hat.  Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other.  This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic."  S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate.  The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation.  S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member.  Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works.  It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group.  The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated.  Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process.

The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process.  S/He will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion.  Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.

This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings.  It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.

The Delphi Technique is based on the Hegelian Principle of achieving Oneness of Mind through a three step process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.  In thesis and antithesis, all present their opinion or views on a given subject, establishing views and opposing views.  In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis.  All participants are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their own views to align with the new thesis.  Through a continual process of evolution, Oneness of Mind will supposedly occur.

The theory of the Delphi and the reality of the Delphi are, obviously, quite different — the reality being that Oneness of Mind does not occur but only the illusion of Oneness of Mind with those who refuse to be Delphi'd being alienated from participating in the process.

While proponents of education reform feel they are quite justified in this, the effect of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps.  In an effort to maintain the process, advocates have marketed a plethora of publications (such as What's Left After the Right, No Right Turn and If You Don't, They Will) intended to label, castigate, and alienate anyone who does not go along with them.  As a result, parents come to understand that their role in education reform is merely perfunctory; that the outcome is preset, that they are not but the rah-rah team so when opposition does arise, advocates of education reform can say, "we had community input." 

To make sure that the situation is controlled, only those parents who agree with the process are allowed on the restructuring teams.  New participants are carefully screened to ensure that education reform goes forward unquestioned.

If measurable opposition persists, advocates are told, get the local ministers on board.  Take steps to neutralize, by whatever means necessary, the opposition.  In some places, opponents have been harassed, both at home and on the job, personal property has been damaged and vandalized, people have lost their jobs.  Anyone who does not go along with the restructuring of our society is susceptible to the totalitarian tactics of those promoting education reform – whether it be parents, teachers, principals, superintendents or board members.  The need exists for advocates to maintain an iron grip on the process.  They cannot, for instance, withstand open public debate of the issues.  Therefore, they do not partake in public forums.  They cannot withstand the criticism, so they close every avenue for parents to address the issues.  They are rapidly creating, through their divisive tactics, a volatile situation.  America is being torn apart.

Parents, citizens, teachers, principals, superintendents who are opposed to the new purpose being given our American education system need tools to withstand the process being used to bring it in — against the Delphi Technique and consensus which, through their basis in the Hegelian Principle, have Marxist connections and purposes.

First, no opportunity must be left untaken to expose this unethical, divisive process.  Second, when this process is used, it can be disrupted.  To do so, however, one must be able to recognize when the Delphi Technique is being used, and how to disrupt it.

[Dig]

The Venus Project:
The Second Amendment and Re-Education

AJ: "Where do you stand on the second amendment? There is always going to be bad people that want to hurt good people, aren't I allowed to have guns?"

PJ: "It is not a matter of allowed to have guns it is a matter of is it necessary. And that is a thing I disagree with you on."

AJ: "But who is going to decide if it is necessary? Because I assure you..."

PJ: "If there is a need to manufacture a gun it could happen. However, you are missing the point. You are trying to achieve a system that doesn't have stratification and control. We live in such a stratified control mechanism, there is elitism in every area of society."

AJ: "Who is going to enforce no one having guns man, what are you..."

PJ: "There is no enforcement, it is based on the understandings and education of what this planet is, who you actually are. That is why I go after religion. Because religion is the biggest, most offensive element...systematic institution that there is. You cannot have a whole group of people believing in something that stops their intellectual growth. Does that mean they need to be eradicated? Of course not...THEY NEED TO BE RE-EDUCATED."

====================================================

Oh man, is there an automatic transcription device or something?

This is totally incredible.  He avoids the 2nd amendment question twice and then like a child goes to his crutch... "religion, religion is the evil enemy!!!" And then he exposes the true plan...RE-EDUCATION!!!!


Time for Re-Education...

[Double]

Oh man, OK, so this thread has now been turned into a "Blatasky Worship" thread?  WTF? I thought PJ was confused, now instead of saying he was mistaken, we have gone 180 degrees saying he is justified in his theospian worship because some of the rulers like Pike, Crowley, Bailey and Blatlasky were really, really cool.

Peter has nothing to do with theospian. You shoudn't make judgements on subjects you know little about.
Besides theospian is just a word that means little. I just care about learning the truth about the knowledge of our ancestors
thats been perverted 100 times over by every religion and cult in existence. Theospian included.

Oh man, is there an automatic transcription device or something?

This is totally incredible.  He avoids the 2nd amendment question twice and then like a child goes to his crutch... "religion, religion is the evil enemy!!!" And then he exposes the true plan...RE-EDUCATION!!!!


Time for Re-Education...

Hello? We are already being re-educated with our current public de-education system.