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

[trailhound]

Quote
This carrying capacity crap is such bullshit
No it's not, it's basic common sense. You wouldn't grow broccoli on a beach. That's what this is about -- effective methods of working with the Earth.
I think that reason why people tingle at the notion of the carrying capacity of the earth is possibly because they think it'd entail a major population reduction or something silly. Not so, we can easily support our current world population (and more!). Jacque will be the first to admit that.

 You could grow broccoli on a beach. 

 We can easily support our capacity and a lot more yes i agree. Meanwhile you have clintonite scientists saying we are already over capacity. Forgive me if you are not in that crowd, thats what i heard you saying, if not i stand corrected. 

[BrentonEccles]

Ofcourse you could. We don't even need soil to grow food, that's hydroponics! With science and technology our capabilities are really limitless in every way.

I can assure you that none of us are in line with those Clintonite scientists. In-fact, I'd encourage you to e-mail the Venus Project and ask them yourself if you really want to know.
The people who say the world is inherently overpopulated, are thinking in the frame of mind of someone who wants to keep up this scarcity based environment.
In the system we've got now, we definitely cannot maintain our continuing population growth -- because it cannot allow for enough for all people. There has to be ... unfair slicing of the pie, because if everyone has what they need... no one needs money anymore, because nothing can be valued.

I would like to encourage all of you to further educate yourselves as to what a Resource-based Economy actually is, not what anyone wants to -tell- you it is.

Please, when you can, take the time to view the Zeitgeist Activist Orientation Video  (one hour and a half) which is also available in sourced e-book format (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf).

[trailhound]

I am not closed minded and will view your link. However in my mind i link surplus goods with human activity. The way to motivate people to produce more is the free market.  I do not understand how a 'resource based economy' would work. I will watch your vid.

[trailhound]

As i listen i cant help but to agree with the point that due to the consumption based economy that things are made to breakdown and need replacement. I dont think any of us can deny that. It wasnt always that way though. I find myself looking for old tools and furniture etc. often because they used to build it right. Old houses are often far more valuable than new ones because they are built to last. 

At the same time most of us cant afford to have the best of everything so we compromise by buying crap that will get us through a period of time till we can hopefully afford better. Right now the reason for this trend is not free market economy. Here in america it is because we are sold out and shackled by fiat monsters, not to mention trying to compete with slave labor....long story others have iterated much better than i have the energy to do. see

http://mises.org/

 

[BrentonEccles]

It wasnt always that way though.

It certainly was not, but, there's really no way that'll change in this system because the profit structure is designed that way. I think mostly the reason for that is because most things used to be handmade, and therefore they were made better. Now industry uses cheap materials, and so forth and will continue to do so.
If we were to revert to 'sound money' things could very possibly get worse, because as I'm sure you know, in a true free-market the scarcity is quite higher than even what we've got now.

Right now the reason for this trend is not free market economy. Here in america it is because we are sold out and shackled by fiat monsters

Yes, but the problem is, as technology continues to automate (which is going to happen no matter what) the monetary system in -any- form will be obsolete.
If society cannot get jobs to support the economy it just wont work at all and I don't think I really need to explain why. Here's one example: http://www.planetnetopia.com/forum/posts/id_191/title_mcdonald's-tests-automation-to-replace/

I understand all the economic stuff you linked to already. Bottom line is that we'll have to stagnate technology to sustain such a system in the future. This isn't about people become dictators and ruling with technology, it's about technology making life easier for all people by advancing our understanding and use of it.

[trailhound]

 I hear you about the machines.  But with the machines in a free market economy comes lower prices and while true that not as much labor is necessary to produce, also not as much cash is needed to buy. So worse case scenario machines+free market economy would equal people having more time on their hands as well as money to pursue their creative lives. 

[BrentonEccles]

But you'd still have wars and poverty, because scarcity would still exist.

If you want to argue that scarcity doesn't cause detrimental behaviour, then you need look no further than the man who recently shot dead 12 people -- he'd not long been fired from his job at IBM.

And when you take in population growth, how can that work? If there's an economy, then everyone needs to find a way to earn money in order to survive. Since almost every sector is being automated, where are people going to work?
Or, there's the absolutely shudder-worthy option of putting everyone on permanent social services payments. :\

What a Resource-based Economy would do would be to allow everyone to live within their means.

[trailhound]

 There's always new work.  The idea of machines running society is scary to me! A brave new world indeed...

[BrentonEccles]

No, there really is not. Unemployment is staying at stably higher rates.
Why does that scare you? Perhaps you don't quite understand what that would mean.

Would you care to elaborate on, in your understanding, what it would mean if machines were 'running society'? What their actual function would be and what they would do, etc,.?
You needn't be detailed, I just want to understand your frame of mind.

[trailhound]

No, there really is not. Unemployment is staying at stably higher rates.
Why does that scare you? Perhaps you don't quite understand what that would mean.

i am aware of this but see different reasons for it.  A big one is , in the us, we are competing with slave labor. free markets work with free people. The other reason is the boom and bust cycle of fiat based market. It is erroneous to apply these factors to a truly free market economy.

 

[trailhound]

Would you care to elaborate on, in your understanding, what it would mean if machines were 'running society'? What their actual function would be and what they would do, etc,.?
You needn't be detailed, I just want to understand your frame of mind.

I really cant even imagine.  There so many things in life that are not absolute.  There are as many realities as there are people and i dont see how a machine could address that fact. Further more i wholly believe that the freedom and liberty of the individual to pursue life liberty and happiness as they see fit so long as they do no harm to others is the most productive and sane approach to such a confusing world. Taking orders from a computer would not set well with me.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

What a Resource-based Economy would do would be to allow everyone to live within their means.

really? that's neat magic trick, to be able to somehow determine the needs of every single individual at the same time.

you say a computer is going to determine how much resources we can use? oh, that sure sounds like freedom to me.

the competitive market system is the reason we have technology as we know today, if you buy into this utopian dream of some controlled planned system where people's needs (and thus there ends) are pre-determined by some controlled or planned process, then i feel you are misguided, you may have sincere intentions but you are inadvertently wishing slavery on us all.

[White Rose Sophie]

really? that's neat magic trick, to be able to somehow determine the needs of every single individual at the same time.

you say a computer is going to determine how much resources we can use? oh, that sure sounds like freedom to me.

the competitive market system is the reason we have technology as we know today, if you buy into this utopian dream of some controlled planned system where people's needs (and thus there ends) are pre-determined by some controlled or planned process, then i feel you are misguided, you may have sincere intentions but you are inadvertently wishing slavery on us all.

Exactly.  Who decides?  Oh, I know - the same NWO people we are battling against.  You know - the 'One-Worlders".   Zeitgeist is funded by Artivist (see other thread).....who are sponsored by (you guessed it) The United Nations. (Maurice Strong, Rockefeller, the usual suspect band of Eugenicists)

SlaveryCollectivism vs Individual Freedom.

Same old song and dance, just a new costume on the performer.

[BrentonEccles]

Where exactly is the "mis-quote" and the following correction?

You can find that sourced here (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=3&func=view&catid=229&id=85094). Even if PJ had decided personally that 9/11 was not an inside job it wouldn't matter because both his films make it clear that 9/11 was and he's not seeking that change that at all.

Maybe the ‘Venus boys’ are telling him to ‘move away’ from it eh?

Too bad Jacque seems to think there were criminal elements behind 9/11 too.

However since it only contains one very extreme viewpoint, that Christianity is merely sun worship, one can only call it propaganda.

Not really. Then any film about the life of Jesus must also be total propaganda, and since the Bible (to the average reader) would not cause a person to conclude wholeheartedly that Christianity is a nature religion like all others in  root ... then the Bible must also be propaganda? Interesting way of looking at things.

Sorry sport i fully believe he was quoted correctly, the only reason he put that stuff in their was to infiltrate the truth movement.

Ofcourse you do, because you want to offer a solution to humanity than can only work for Americans and will only function well so long as technology is stagnated.

A Theosophical Technocracy.

I've spoken with a few theosophists before, and to be quite honest, if it as a 'theosophist' movement at it's core (i.e., officially connected with the theosophical society) then big deal. Some of the aims of that society are as follows (according to their websites):

to diffuse among men a knowledge of the laws inherent in the universe;
to promulgate the knowledge of the essential unity of all that is, and to demonstrate that this unity is fundamental in nature;
to form an active brotherhood among men;
to study ancient and modern religion, science, and philosophy;
to investigate the powers innate in man.

If that sounds so.... reprehensible to you, then I have to ask what you hope for humanity?

The problem is because we're talking about real change, you're clinging to this all system because you have a sense of ego and security attached to it. The reality is the free-market system will never work again, with our socieities, in any form. We would need to completely go  backward, to decide that the world would become whole nationalistic states again and have rules of strict trade between countries. Don't get me wrong, in a monetary system I'm inclined to say that the free-market system is by far the best option, but it's not great now and increasingly moreso it will not work. Rather than us sit here and complain and just call things 'NWO' or 'Illuminati' let us actually try and gain a critical understanding of things.

That means, that you don't take other peoples views for granted as the truth. So if someone says "Zeitgeist Addendum is NWO Theosophical Propaganda" (and boy, what a mouthful) you don't just say "Oh, well that view will support the system I advocate, so I'll just agree with that." That's the easy road out. Taking in regard that a Resource-based Economy is growing in popularity and understanding, you too owe it to yourself if you want to talk about it to be properly educated as to what it is actually about -- rather than what someone else has told -you- find out for yourself.

When you have time, please watch our Activist Orientation Video which is subsequently sourced in e-book format (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf).

Sure is.   covering all bases.

Sorry dude, thats like Bush 1 saying New World Order, and then saying hes misquoted. Or its out of context. Get over it. Your man played you all.

Again, even if he didn't believe 9/11 were an inside job it wouldn't particularly matter. Firstly because, there is a decent portion of the public highly unlikely to accept 9/11 being an inside job (at least, they might accept that in the VERY least the U.S., government enticed/allowed it to happen) because of their education so on that level it would be beneficial to the movement. And that's mainly because no matter what 9/11 was, just talking about it and complaining, is not going to solve the problem at all. Peter has moved away from focusing on 9/11 because he like the rest of us want to offer people with a tangible solution.
On top of that, I don't know if you remember but in the past Peter used to actively encourage people to go to Inside Job-style protest and activist meetings. If you like I can see if I can find some archive.org evidence
And, he still keeps both of his films online which attack 9/11 as false-flag in nature. Interesting that you could honestly conclude that he doesn't think of 9/11 as inside job.

Sure is.   covering all bases.

Sorry dude, thats like Bush 1 saying New World Order, and then saying hes misquoted. Or its out of context. Get over it. Your man played you all.

Symbols are pretty irrelevant, friend, for the simple reason that they're very much open to many interpretations. You need look no further than some of the 1 dollar bill symbols which have about 3 or 4 different interpretations.

They believe that they can force evolution.

No, we think we can reorient people. That happens constantly, people constantly change their minds and behaviour. When someone converts to a different religion, they're reorienting themselves, etc,. It's not about forcing, it's about educating and leaving the rest to each individual.

Hes just trying to cover his butt as more and more people are seeing through the BS.

If he didn't believe 9/11 were an inside job, he would've made some excuse to remove or edit out the second part of the first Zeitgeist.

All you need is a bit of population reduction

No, you don't mate. Do you research.

Everyone is free to accept or reject Jesus Christ

Absolutely, and we're not asking people to become Atheists. It's interesting that you should conclude that because the Zeitgeist film doesn't espouse the traditionalist history of Jesus Christ that it must be an attack on it. That's just crazy. A lot of Westerners automatically say Mohammed is the 'most violent figure in religious history' -- and that's on the same unfair lines as what you're going.

So glad to see the Zeitgeist/Theosophy stuff exposed and debunked. Good info, 37. It's amazing how many people were duped by Zeitgeist and went out to attack Christians like Zeitgeist was irrefutable truth from the fount of all wisdom, Peter Joseph.

No one has ever said that Zeitgeist PT. 1 was without errors. Since it's exposed and debunked then, I assume that you have an absolutely high level of understanding of a resource-based economy and our movement in general? For, you cannot 'debunk' something without a critically high level of knowledge from all ends.

But PJ made 2 films highlighting FF terrorism and specifically 9/11.  9/11 is a core piece of the pie and is still used to justify US genocide and oppressive tyranny.

I really do not understand your argument.

Exactly but just sitting around bitching about it wont solve the problem.

[BrentonEccles]

Further more i wholly believe that the freedom and liberty of the individual to pursue life liberty and happiness as they see fit so long as they do no harm to others is the most productive and sane approach to such a confusing world. Taking orders from a computer would not set well with me.

Well that's excellent because in a Resource-based Economy machines free people. While humans should be allowed to pursue what they want to, I'm sure you'd agree that it's not freeing to humanity to hold the automation of say an elevator back so that we can maintain a working force of people.
In a Resource-based Economy, machines do not monitor people but the Earth. This means they monitor agriculture, production of products, water purification, etc,. In a Resource-based Economy, machines controlling the personal decision making of people would be erroneous.
The only things that the machines 'work on' are the things which affect all. Everyone needs to eat, and drink, etc,. But not everyone 'needs' an abortion, or to be told to be interested in (censorship wouldn't exist), etc,.
If something is not effecting on the wellbeing of the majority, then the only person that needs to make a decision on it is you. This is in stark contrast to a political/legal systems general (unfortunate) tendency to legislate on certain areas for the whole population such as marriage being constructively defined for example.
In a Resource-based Economy, a family could be whatever it wanted to be. The nuclear family isn't threatened but allowed to flourish into whatever people want it to be.

[squarepusher]

Well that's excellent because in a Resource-based Economy machines free people. While humans should be allowed to pursue what they want to, I'm sure you'd agree that it's not freeing to humanity to hold the automation of say an elevator back so that we can maintain a working force of people.
In a Resource-based Economy, machines do not monitor people but the Earth. This means they monitor agriculture, production of products, water purification, etc,. In a Resource-based Economy, machines controlling the personal decision making of people would be erroneous.
The only things that the machines 'work on' are the things which affect all. Everyone needs to eat, and drink, etc,. But not everyone 'needs' an abortion, or to be told to be interested in (censorship wouldn't exist), etc,.
If something is not effecting on the wellbeing of the majority, then the only person that needs to make a decision on it is you. This is in stark contrast to a political/legal systems general (unfortunate) tendency to legislate on certain areas for the whole population such as marriage being constructively defined for example.
In a Resource-based Economy, a family could be whatever it wanted to be. The nuclear family isn't threatened but allowed to flourish into whatever people want it to be.

Here is the whole problem - you're playing exactly into the 'trap' that guys like Maurice Strong and other Earth Chartists have been setting up for years - the James Lovelocks, the Gaia cult worshippers, and so on.

You're falling for an utopia, just like the communist movement and women's lib before it. There's always a good reason, and then there's a REAL reason.

I'm quite sure you haven't thought this particular utopia through.

I've spoken with a few theosophists before, and to be quite honest, if it as a 'theosophist' movement at it's core (i.e., officially connected with the theosophical society) then big deal. Some of the aims of that society are as follows (according to their websites):

It would behoove you to look somewhat deeper into Theosophy - Adolf Hitler's Thule Society was basically Germany's Theosophical Society. Have you ever read Blavatsky's race purity literature? The Aryan race? The fifth and the sixth root race? The Maitreya?

Big deal huh.

[Dig]

You can find that sourced here (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=3&func=view&catid=229&id=85094). Even if PJ had decided personally that 9/11 was not an inside job it wouldn't matter because both his films make it clear that 9/11 was and he's not seeking that change that at all.
Too bad Jacque seems to think there were criminal elements behind 9/11 too.
Not really. Then any film about the life of Jesus must also be total propaganda, and since the Bible (to the average reader) would not cause a person to conclude wholeheartedly that Christianity is a nature religion like all others in  root ... then the Bible must also be propaganda? Interesting way of looking at things.
Ofcourse you do, because you want to offer a solution to humanity than can only work for Americans and will only function well so long as technology is stagnated.
I've spoken with a few theosophists before, and to be quite honest, if it as a 'theosophist' movement at it's core (i.e., officially connected with the theosophical society) then big deal. Some of the aims of that society are as follows (according to their websites):If that sounds so.... reprehensible to you, then I have to ask what you hope for humanity?

The problem is because we're talking about real change, you're clinging to this all system because you have a sense of ego and security attached to it. The reality is the free-market system will never work again, with our socieities, in any form. We would need to completely go  backward, to decide that the world would become whole nationalistic states again and have rules of strict trade between countries. Don't get me wrong, in a monetary system I'm inclined to say that the free-market system is by far the best option, but it's not great now and increasingly moreso it will not work. Rather than us sit here and complain and just call things 'NWO' or 'Illuminati' let us actually try and gain a critical understanding of things.

That means, that you don't take other peoples views for granted as the truth. So if someone says "Zeitgeist Addendum is NWO Theosophical Propaganda" (and boy, what a mouthful) you don't just say "Oh, well that view will support the system I advocate, so I'll just agree with that." That's the easy road out. Taking in regard that a Resource-based Economy is growing in popularity and understanding, you too owe it to yourself if you want to talk about it to be properly educated as to what it is actually about -- rather than what someone else has told -you- find out for yourself.

When you have time, please watch our Activist Orientation Video which is subsequently sourced in e-book format (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf).
Again, even if he didn't believe 9/11 were an inside job it wouldn't particularly matter. Firstly because, there is a decent portion of the public highly unlikely to accept 9/11 being an inside job (at least, they might accept that in the VERY least the U.S., government enticed/allowed it to happen) because of their education so on that level it would be beneficial to the movement. And that's mainly because no matter what 9/11 was, just talking about it and complaining, is not going to solve the problem at all. Peter has moved away from focusing on 9/11 because he like the rest of us want to offer people with a tangible solution.
On top of that, I don't know if you remember but in the past Peter used to actively encourage people to go to Inside Job-style protest and activist meetings. If you like I can see if I can find some archive.org evidence
And, he still keeps both of his films online which attack 9/11 as false-flag in nature. Interesting that you could honestly conclude that he doesn't think of 9/11 as inside job.
Symbols are pretty irrelevant, friend, for the simple reason that they're very much open to many interpretations. You need look no further than some of the 1 dollar bill symbols which have about 3 or 4 different interpretations.
No, we think we can reorient people. That happens constantly, people constantly change their minds and behaviour. When someone converts to a different religion, they're reorienting themselves, etc,. It's not about forcing, it's about educating and leaving the rest to each individual.
If he didn't believe 9/11 were an inside job, he would've made some excuse to remove or edit out the second part of the first Zeitgeist.
No, you don't mate. Do you research.
Absolutely, and we're not asking people to become Atheists. It's interesting that you should conclude that because the Zeitgeist film doesn't espouse the traditionalist history of Jesus Christ that it must be an attack on it. That's just crazy. A lot of Westerners automatically say Mohammed is the 'most violent figure in religious history' -- and that's on the same unfair lines as what you're going.
No one has ever said that Zeitgeist PT. 1 was without errors. Since it's exposed and debunked then, I assume that you have an absolutely high level of understanding of a resource-based economy and our movement in general? For, you cannot 'debunk' something without a critically high level of knowledge from all ends.
Exactly but just sitting around bitching about it wont solve the problem.

Wait a minute, so you are saying the fictionally named PJ is not moving away from exposing the true criminals behind 9/11?

Can you please post the revision by the New York Times.

This will really help in setting the record straight for this humanitarian and freedom fighter!

[BrentonEccles]

You're falling for an utopia, just like the communist movement and women's lib before it. There's always a good reason, and then there's a REAL reason.

I'm quite sure you haven't thought this particular utopia through.

I certainly have. We're not talking about a utopia, and I don't know why you'd think we are.
All we're talking about is the fact that applying Science to society for human and environmental concern would raise our standard of living very quickly because there'd be nothing to hold it back. For example, today when you have an innovative idea it can take a very long time to get it out to people because you need good marketing skills and all that sort of stuff.
In a resource-based economy, innovative ideas would be acted upon as soon as possible... because you aren't selling anything, no one needs to market it... you just arrive at the innovation through science.

Wait a minute, so you are saying the fictionally named PJ is not moving away from exposing the true criminals behind 9/11?

Since the NYT article is about 3 weeks old, I don't think it's very likely they'll correct that article. Peter has done about as much as anyone needs to do in regards to 9/11 and that is to expose it. If we 'expose' the true criminals in terms of prosecuting them, that isn't going to solve any problems ... it follows that if you were to destroy all the elites, there'd be new ones in the morning. Because our system creates them.
We're interested in changing society so there's no basis for such things. These criminals do things like 9/11 because it's rewarded in one way or another by this system.

It would behoove you to look somewhat deeper into Theosophy - Adolf Hitler's Thule Society was basically Germany's Theosophical Society. Have you ever read Blavatsky's race purity literature? The Aryan race? The fifth and the sixth root race? The Maitreya?

As an open-minded person I know theosophy pretty well. I receive newsletters from their society from time-to-time (though I am by no means a member) and give them as much due attention as I do to understanding other spiritual traditions (Christianity, Islam, etc,) too.
I'm quite aware of Blavatsky's (shall we say) interesting things, and what she said. In regard to her race purity literature, it's really quite distasteful in many ways, but for the sake of usefulness if you really want to you can simply interpret that stuff as her calling for all people to better themselves (become 'pure') ... which is no different to most religions, really.
Blavatsky is long dead, so we really needn't concern ourselves with her, and I'm quite sure that, her works like most spiritual works will not stand the test of time. Religious traditions are all forgotten eventually (or so history seems to say).

But, if you take the most well known objectives of theosophy (take what's good from something) ... I think most people would have to say they're pretty admirable (freedom encouraging) aims.

You need to understand that just because we're talking about uniting humanity, doesn't mean we are the child of an occult organisation. What is so awful about asking humanity to unite, to recognise that we're all working toward the same aims anyway?

[Dig]

I certainly have. We're not talking about a utopia, and I don't know why you'd think we are.
All we're talking about is the fact that applying Science to society for human and environmental concern would raise our standard of living very quickly because there'd be nothing to hold it back. For example, today when you have an innovative idea it can take a very long time to get it out to people because you need good marketing skills and all that sort of stuff.
In a resource-based economy, innovative ideas would be acted upon as soon as possible... because you aren't selling anything, no one needs to market it... you just arrive at the innovation through science.
Since the NYT article is about 3 weeks old, I don't think it's very likely they'll correct that article. Peter has done about as much as anyone needs to do in regards to 9/11 and that is to expose it. If we 'expose' the true criminals in terms of prosecuting them, that isn't going to solve any problems ... it follows that if you were to destroy all the elites, there'd be new ones in the morning. Because our system creates them.
We're interested in changing society so there's no basis for such things. These criminals do things like 9/11 because it's rewarded in one way or another by this system.
As an open-minded person I know theosophy pretty well. I receive newsletters from their society from time-to-time (though I am by no means a member) and give them as much due attention as I do to understanding other spiritual traditions (Christianity, Islam, etc,) too.
I'm quite aware of Blavatsky's (shall we say) interesting things, and what she said. In regard to her race purity literature, it's really quite distasteful in many ways, but for the sake of usefulness if you really want to you can simply interpret that stuff as her calling for all people to better themselves (become 'pure') ... which is no different to most religions, really.
Blavatsky is long dead, so we really needn't concern ourselves with her, and I'm quite sure that, her works like most spiritual works will not stand the test of time. Religious traditions are all forgotten eventually (or so history seems to say).

But, if you take the most well known objectives of theosophy (take what's good from something) ... I think most people would have to say they're pretty admirable (freedom encouraging) aims.

Peter has done about as much as anyone needs to do in regards to 9/11 and that is to expose it.

If we 'expose' the true criminals in terms of prosecuting them, that isn't going to solve any problems ...

it follows that if you were to destroy all the elites, there'd be new ones in the morning.

Because our system creates them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Have you completely lost your fricking mind?

[BrentonEccles]

Peter has done about as much as anyone needs to do in regards to 9/11 and that is to expose it.

If we 'expose' the true criminals in terms of prosecuting them, that isn't going to solve any problems ...

it follows that if you were to destroy all the elites, there'd be new ones in the morning.

Because our system creates them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Have you completely lost your fricking mind?

Nope, I'm just talking about basic human behaviour.
A nazi culture would perpetuate the existence of the Gestapo, and other such things. Our society rewards false-flag terrorism, through the profit corporations have gained by being able to create these wars and establish prisons of torture and 'patriot' legislation and so forth.

[squarepusher]

BrentonEccles:

Please outline where your vision of the 'dome'-like society differs from that promulgated by Maurice Strong, James Lovelock, and the other bunch.

Secondly, Blavatsky may be dead, but the seeds she has planted in creating an universal new-age religion certainly hasn't. It's all 'probability thinking' - becoming your own 'inner God'.

I certainly need to be concerned about Theosophists, because Lucis Trust, the foundation Alice Bailey (one of Blavatsky's acolytes) set up is a Non-Governmental Organization with special United Nations consultative rights. That's why I need to be 'concerned'.

[Unintelligable Name]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtzrqvPfnE0

Sums up my argument.

[Magnumpi]

What about a charity based society? Or idea based? They can read dreams now, can't they? That would be best, success based on how cool your dreams are, completely removing the hurdles brought upon society by conscious thought.

[Unintelligable Name]

You can't have a charity based society. People have to give by their own volition, which requires no framework of society to force that -- otherwise it's stealing [TAXES]

No government is needed for people to be more giving, by their own accord, to their fellow man. It's a line of thinking destined to fail.

[Dig]

Nope, I'm just talking about basic human behaviour.
A nazi culture would perpetuate the existence of the Gestapo, and other such things. Our society rewards false-flag terrorism, through the profit corporations have gained by being able to create these wars and establish prisons of torture and 'patriot' legislation and so forth.

Ok, maybe I just woke up into la-la land. You are saying that we should use the problems and reactions of false flag terrorism/corruption/nazi behaviour to provide a solution that destroys the very foundation of our society? Is that what I am hearing?  We should not actually expose the truth of what happened and instead use the widespread reaction to usher in a new society that will also include this concept of not investigating when the next false flag terror/corruption/nazi behaviour occurs.  Then we can just repeat the same destruction of the foundation to usher in another new world society.

How does that make sense at all?

Building a new society by covering up and ignoring the crimes that created the reaction is like creating a new financial world order/bank without investigating the crimes of the federal reserve.

This is so fricking back asswards that I do not even know where to begin.

This is a joke right, you are just joking with us right?

[Unintelligable Name]

This is a joke right, you are just joking with us right?

No, he isn't joking. Problem Reaction Solution really does work that well to mold and generate the desired opinions...

[BrentonEccles]

Please outline where your vision of the 'dome'-like society differs from that promulgated by Maurice Strong, James Lovelock, and the other bunch.

Well to begin with, people like Maurice strong aren't examining the root causes of the problems. They don't recognise that monetary economics itself is the problem, and this is why the U.N., has and will not work because they have nice ideals and all that... but they're just talking about it.
You can't unify people when you've got them going off in 1992991919 directions about how the fundamentals of society should be handled.

The major difference in a resource-based economy vision to theirs, is that we're concerned with using methods to achieve fairness for all people. They just want to talk about it. For example the U.N., water report that concluded that there's more than enough water on the planet for everyone, but that it must be optimised and managed holistically rather than with political borders. We are actually pursuing a tangible solution, but because it has some similarities with idealistic versions that haven't and will not work some of you are at that point instantly closed up to the reality that this will work.

We have the means (Science and Technology) to do this. Granted, other people have talked about the same ideals. But those people want to preserve the structures which are in part the biggest plugs-in-the-holes themselves. You don't need a politician up there pushing for funding (resources) to your area if technology has already provided enough for everyone in the first place. So, if we eliminate scarcity then we eliminate need for hierarchical structures.

You can't have a charity based society. People have to give by their own volition...

No one has to 'give' anything. That's the point of applying technology in the first place. You only have to 'give' if things have to be rationed about.

You are saying that we should use the problems and reactions of false flag terrorism/corruption/nazi behaviour to provide a solution that destroys the very foundation of our society? Is that what I am hearing?  We should not actually expose the truth of what happened and instead use the widespread reaction to usher in a new society that will also include this concept of not investigating when the next false flag terror/corruption/nazi behaviour occurs.

No, but what I'm saying is that exposing it wont eliminate the problem and the possibility of future occurances. If we exposed, unequivocally to the world, right now without a doubt to all that 9/11 was false flag -- we'd prosecute people and and so forth. But that doesn't mean it'd stop ... terrorism would just come up in other places, and the people would still be made to feel threatened.

Building a new society by covering up and ignoring the crimes

That's absolutely not what I'm talking about. I'm just saying that we needn't look to those things to be a wholesome solution. I'm all for opening up the gates and having a 9/11 investigation.
And on top of that, I'd be the first to vote for sound money... so that those who think it really would work today would be able to experience the reality that it just would not function in accord with our social values and so forth.

If you are still having some trouble grasping all these concepts, please further investigate what a Resource-based Economy is. Watch our Orientation Video and see it's respective source material (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf).

[BrentonEccles]

I would like to see Alex Jones invited to go visit The Venus Project, to sit and talk with Jacque and Roxanne. On top of that, to have it filmed.

If there's nothing to be scared of (i.e., clinging onto the free-market idea) then there is no reason why Alex should not be able to have his understanding of a Resource-based Economy refined.

We don't need to "win over" Alex Jones. I used to listen to him almost everyday until I realised how ridiculous his reaction was on the air with Peter. It's understandable though, because, when faced with something so radically new people often act in a defensive way because they've attached ego to what they think would be best rather than what would objectively be best as arrived at by the Scientific METHOD (not the dictates of a science, but the application of the METHOD).

[Dig]

Well to begin with, people like Maurice strong aren't examining the root causes of the problems. They don't recognise that monetary economics itself is the problem, and this is why the U.N., has and will not work because they have nice ideals and all that... but they're just talking about it.
You can't unify people when you've got them going off in 1992991919 directions about how the fundamentals of society should be handled.

The major difference in a resource-based economy vision to theirs, is that we're concerned with using methods to achieve fairness for all people. They just want to talk about it. For example the U.N., water report that concluded that there's more than enough water on the planet for everyone, but that it must be optimised and managed holistically rather than with political borders. We are actually pursuing a tangible solution, but because it has some similarities with idealistic versions that haven't and will not work some of you are at that point instantly closed up to the reality that this will work.

We have the means (Science and Technology) to do this. Granted, other people have talked about the same ideals. But those people want to preserve the structures which are in part the biggest plugs-in-the-holes themselves. You don't need a politician up there pushing for funding (resources) to your area if technology has already provided enough for everyone in the first place. So, if we eliminate scarcity then we eliminate need for hierarchical structures.
No one has to 'give' anything. That's the point of applying technology in the first place. You only have to 'give' if things have to be rationed about.
No, but what I'm saying is that exposing it wont eliminate the problem and the possibility of future occurances. If we exposed, unequivocally to the world, right now without a doubt to all that 9/11 was false flag -- we'd prosecute people and and so forth. But that doesn't mean it'd stop ... terrorism would just come up in other places, and the people would still be made to feel threatened.
That's absolutely not what I'm talking about. I'm just saying that we needn't look to those things to be a wholesome solution. I'm all for opening up the gates and having a 9/11 investigation.
And on top of that, I'd be the first to vote for sound money... so that those who think it really would work today would be able to experience the reality that it just would not function in accord with our social values and so forth.

If you are still having some trouble grasping all these concepts, please further investigate what a Resource-based Economy is. Watch our Orientation Video and see it's respective source material (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf).

Dude, I appreciate that you have a decent ability to form sentences, but your logic is so fricking back asswords I feel like I am reading a Eugene Ionnesco play.

[Freeski]

Dude, I appreciate that you have a decent ability to form sentences, but your logic is so fricking back asswords I feel like I am reading a Eugene Ionnesco play.

Plus one trillion. (even without the little guy)

[BrentonEccles]

Dude, I appreciate that you have a decent ability to form sentences, but your logic is so fricking back asswords I feel like I am reading a Eugene Ionnesco play.

No it's not.
It's enough for you to engage in an ad-hominem attack.
That's a totally erroneous response, and unless you want to make a valid response don't even bother.

On top of that, don't just take my word for things. Investigate properly what a resource-based economy is, read the materials I've linked you to and so forth.

[Freeski]

No it's not.
It's enough for you to engage in an ad-hominem attack.
That's a totally erroneous response, and unless you want to make a valid response don't even bother.

On top of that, don't just take my word for things. Investigate properly what a resource-based economy is, read the materials I've linked you to and so forth.

Do you believe that people should be free, and if so, what does that actually mean to you?

[BrentonEccles]

Do you believe that people should be free, and if so, what does that actually mean to you?

It means the freedom to live as you please.
If you want to go to Japan on holiday, you go. You don't need to collect money in order to have the purchasing power (freedom) to do it.
I advocate freedom on all levels. Government has no right to tell you who you can marry, where you can walk, what you can think, read, etc,.

[Dig]

I would like to see Alex Jones invited to go visit The Venus Project, to sit and talk with Jacque and Roxanne. On top of that, to have it filmed.

If there's nothing to be scared of (i.e., clinging onto the free-market idea) then there is no reason why Alex should not be able to have his understanding of a Resource-based Economy refined.

We don't need to "win over" Alex Jones. I used to listen to him almost everyday until I realised how ridiculous his reaction was on the air with Peter. It's understandable though, because, when faced with something so radically new people often act in a defensive way because they've attached ego to what they think would be best rather than what would objectively be best as arrived at by the Scientific METHOD (not the dictates of a science, but the application of the METHOD).

Wow the chinese, russian, cuban, north korean revolutionaries thought the same thing.  probably right up until the moment they were lined up and summarily shot because there is one thing that new central power brokers hate and that is energetic revolutionaries.

Please get into reality before the "we" you are referring to become a complete puppet for the Rothchild/Rockefeller/Beatrix british/anglo oligarchy that cannot wait to implement the Venus project as everyone can now see their crimes against humanity in plain sight.

No wonder why you are against prosecuting the criminals.

Please explain to us how you are more credible than this guy:

Soviet Deception: Demoralization of the West

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=915448763957391352

[Dig]

It means the freedom to live as you please.
If you want to go to Japan on holiday, you go. You don't need to collect money in order to have the purchasing power (freedom) to do it.
I advocate freedom on all levels. Government has no right to tell you who you can marry, where you can walk, what you can think, read, etc,.

So you definitely advocate that people should be able to do as thou wilt?

[Freeski]

It means the freedom to live as you please.
If you want to go to Japan on holiday, you go. You don't need to collect money in order to have the purchasing power (freedom) to do it.
I advocate freedom on all levels. Government has no right to tell you who you can marry, where you can walk, what you can think, read, etc,.

I don't understand this part - any chance you can rephrase it?
You don't need to collect money in order to have the purchasing power (freedom) to do it.

[BrentonEccles]

So you definitely advocate that people should be able to do as thou wilt?

Ofcourse I do.

Wow the chinese, russian, cuban, north korean revolutionaries thought the same thing.  probably right up until the moment they were lined up and summarily shot because there is one thing that new central power brokers hate and that is energetic revolutionaries.

Please get into reality before the "we" you are referring to become a complete puppet for the Rothchild/Rockefeller/Beatrix british/anglo oligarchy that cannot wait to implement the Venus project as everyone can now see their crimes against humanity in plain sight.

No wonder why you are against prosecuting the criminals.

Please explain to us how you are more credible than this guy:

It doesn't matter what any of them said. They operated in the same systems that we have and are. Namely monetary systems, legal systems, politics and so forth.
They (including the Communists) never have and never will seek to remove those things from the running of society. They don't have that frame of reference, they're all inherently corrupt monetary systems.

The elite are only as powerful as you decide they are. On top of that, they are only as powerful as the social structures while WE support those structures.
Their power is not -quite- as ingrained as you are saying, stop feeling so powerless as you do. All it takes is for us to stop supporting them and their 'empire' falls just as others have in history.

[BrentonEccles]

I don't understand this part - any chance you can rephrase it?
You don't need to collect money in order to have the purchasing power (freedom) to do it.

Basically, in a Resource-based Economy you don't need to save money in order to go on a holiday.
You want to go to China? Fine, go.

[Freeski]

Ofcourse I do.
It doesn't matter what any of them said. They operated in the same systems that we have and are. Namely monetary systems, legal systems, politics and so forth.
They (including the Communists) never have and never will seek to remove those things from the running of society. They don't have that frame of reference, they're all inherently corrupt monetary systems.

The elite are only as powerful as you decide they are. On top of that, they are only as powerful as the social structures while WE support those structures.
Their power is not -quite- as ingrained as you are saying, stop feeling so powerless as you do. All it takes is for us to stop supporting them and their 'empire' falls just as others have in history.

I agree that we have stop playing their game.

[White Rose Sophie]

No, he isn't joking. Problem Reaction Solution really does work that well to mold and generate the desired opinions...

         ZEITGEIST                                   ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM
(Religion + 911False flag+NWO Plans=  Anger, Fear   =  "Venus Project"
     \                             /               \            /         \                   /
        Problem                                  Reaction                   Solution   


"Reallocation of Resources"....."Sustainability"..........

Nothing changes but the buzzwords.

Um....exactly WHO would be in charge of the "Reallocation of Resources"?