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

[Freeski]

Do you believe that Freedom is a possible alternative to the Venus Project, or are you 100% sold on the Venus Project?

[BrentonEccles]

Do you believe that Freedom is a possible alternative to the Venus Project, or are you 100% sold on the Venus Project?

I don't see the alternative as freedom, based on my knowledge and understand of it.

[Freeski]

I don't see the alternative as freedom, based on my knowledge and understand of it.

Do you not believe in it, or trust that it (freedom) could work?

[BrentonEccles]

Do you not believe in it, or trust that it (freedom) could work?

No I'm saying the notion that it will produce true freedom is a total illusion. Much like the idea that drinking bleach will make you pure.

[Freeski]

No I'm saying the notion that it will produce true freedom is a total illusion. Much like the idea that drinking bleach will make you pure.

But it is what it is. If you just let people live and evolve, naturally, as best as they see fit, some sort of balance and compomise will emerge. The best part of all is that when we're all left to our own doing, we are compelled to educate ourselves, to seek out cooperation with like-minded or complementary folk to better our lives, and to create -- be that art or something more commercial. The truth is that the vast majority of us all want the same thing: to live peaceful lives. Let it be. Freedom works if it's left to blossom uncorrupted.

[BrentonEccles]

But it is what it is. If you just let people live and evolve, naturally, as best as they see fit, some sort of balance and compomise will emerge. The best part of all is that when we're all left to our own doing, we are compelled to educate ourselves, to seek out cooperation with like-minded or complementary folk to better our lives, and to create -- be that art or something more commercial. The truth is that the vast majority of us all want the same thing: to live peaceful lives. Let it be. Freedom works if it's left to blossom uncorrupted.

And that's what were talking about. But what you're talking about are structures that stop that from happening.

let people live and evolve, naturally, as best as they see fit

That cant happen with politics. It cant happen if they are limited by money. You might be free enough to walk on your property and go down the street, but you're not free to just go and "get" food -- you have to have purchasing power. In this sort of society like ours where you supposedly just "let that go" elitism will rise up, and you'll just have the rich come and take over. Again and again and again and again.

We can talk about this idea of a return to a "free" society in a free-market or whatever, but the truth is it never was a republic it never was truly free. It's all a terrible illusion, and that's why we keep getting an elite coming to power and taking over. It looks nice when it starts out, but the whole structure perpetuates a move to monopolistic power over time.

[Freeski]

And that's what were talking about. But what you're talking about are structures that stop that from happening. That cant happen with politics. It cant happen if they are limited by money. You might be free enough to walk on your property and go down the street, but you're not free to just go and "get" food -- you have to have purchasing power. In this sort of society like ours where you supposedly just "let that go" elitism will rise up, and you'll just have the rich come and take over. Again and again and again and again.

I've thought long and hard on that idea that elitism will rise up and dominate. You can call it gangs, organized crime, warlords -- or even kings or governments, but if you start with a clean slate (i.e. eliminate the indoctination that already exists), and return the notion of personal responsibility, we CAN nurture AND count on concepts like due dilligence and caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). Yes, it's nice not to have to assess the validity or safety of every product on the market, but we're too far removed from that responsibility today. We need to reassume some of that personal responsibility because it makes us smarter.

But best of all, a free society opens all kinds of opportunities for enterepreneurs to provide a filtering service (things like better business bureaus, stamps of approval from outfits we trust, etc.), and competition - glorious competition - makes certain that only the legitimate and honest businesses thrive, since reputation and word of mouth are free-market drivers. Competition also keeps prices low. I see it as a beautiful balance and although we've never had it, I am convinced it's the best idea we have.

It's not flawless, but that's just life.

[BrentonEccles]

A resource-based economy doesn't claim to be flawless, so please don't make it seem so. Just that it would be way less stressful than our high-energy society.

but if you start with a clean slate (i.e. eliminate the indoctination that already exists), and return the notion of personal responsibility, we CAN nurture AND count on concepts like due dilligence and caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).

That doesn't work, because you have to get at what CAUSED that indoctrination in the first place. It wasn't just "evil people hell bent on bringing in an age of Luciferian religion" or something. What it is, is that people are forced by the system to behave in that way. What it follows is that BANKERS aren't corrupt, but BANKING itself. Does that make sense? I mean, even if you disagree -- can you see how such a conclusion is arrived at?
Heads of corporations aren't greedy, the CORPORATE STRUCTURE is in and of itself.

[Unintelligable Name]

 

[mr anderson]

from: BrentonEccles on Today at 15:35:51
The Constitution is, because it's a document based on language. Unfortunately that can be continually reinterpreted to suit a person, they just don't work. We see that with all Constitutions, and you're from Australia right? You surely have at least some grasp of how problematic our Constitution is!?!

World unification in terms of our common needs. Everyone needs to eat, have clean (non-poisoned) water, have clothing, have an relevant education (one that can be applied for the improvement of self and therefore society), etc,. We unify to meet our common needs. This doesn't mean "Australia," "United States of America" etc don't exist. It's insane to think that would go, but the purpose of a nation would be very different. Today nations are basically corporate structures. The job of the government is to "do the business" of the nation, in the interests of only the nation itself, etc,.

And who oversees such a monumental unification?

There in lies the point, it won't be anyone out for the interets of humanity. Anyone who geniuinely wants to help people through this  Venus Project will be capped and replaced with psychopaths who want to regulate, control, track, trace, reduce population and maintain a society of slaves in compact mega-cities where 98% of the Earth is off-limits.

[Freeski]

A resource-based economy doesn't claim to be flawless, so please don't make it seem so. Just that it would be way less stressful than our high-energy society.
That doesn't work, because you have to get at what CAUSED that indoctrination in the first place. It wasn't just "evil people hell bent on bringing in an age of Luciferian religion" or something. What it is, is that people are forced by the system to behave in that way. What it follows is that BANKERS aren't corrupt, but BANKING itself. Does that make sense? I mean, even if you disagree -- can you see how such a conclusion is arrived at?

But that indoctrination is due to years and years and years of molding the public mind. And that's only made possible because of centralized control and the "cooperation" of the media. End the control (which we pay for through taxes) and the only power they can hope to achieve is through free market principles of persuasion. They will fail. I like those odds because if they can't take money from me by force, to screw with my mind, then they are powerless because their appeal is bogus. I wouldn't want want they offer, nor would I suspect would you.

We can chop them off at the knees.

[BrentonEccles]

And who oversees such a monumental unification?

There in lies the point, it won't be anyone out for the interets of humanity. Anyone who geniuinely wants to help people through this  Venus Project will be capped and replaced with psychopaths who want to regulate, control, track, trace, reduce population and maintain a society of slaves in compact mega-cities where 98% of the Earth is off-limits.

Well if that were to occur it wouldn't be a resource-based economy, or the Venus Project but what you call the "New World Order." Something totally opposite.

But that indoctrination is due to years and years and years of molding the public mind. And that's only made possible because of centralized control and the "cooperation" of the media. End the control (which we pay for through taxes) and the only power they can hope to achieve is through free market principles of persuasion. They will fail. I like those odds because if they can't take money from me by force, to screw with my mind, then they are powerless because their appeal is bogus. I wouldn't want want they offer, nor would I suspect would you.

We can chop them off at the knees.

They still have the structures though. American free-market economics and it's politics, appear to have started out fine, but what happened? People came in and took over. They could only do that because it was a function to fulfill within the system. Those protective 'shields' of the free-market have failed before and if it was tried again they would certainly once more fail.

[Freeski]

Well if that were to occur it wouldn't be a resource-based economy, or the Venus Project but what you call the "New World Order." Something totally opposite.
They still have the structures though. American free-market economics and it's politics, appear to have started out fine, but what happened? People came in and took over. They could only do that because it was a function to fulfill within the system. Those protective 'shields' of the free-market have failed before and if it was tried again they would certainly once more fail.

But those structures have been taken over by an evil cabal: that's the problem. What we have now is fascism and nothing remotely related to "freedom". Today's world is such a joke that we can't even really factor it into the debate. If there's one thing we both agree on, it's that what we have right now is no good, right?

[BrentonEccles]

But those structures have been taken over by an evil cabal: that's the problem. What we have now is fascism and nothing remotely related to "freedom". Today's world is such a joke that we can't even really factor it into the debate. If there's one thing we both agree on, it's that what we have right now is no good, right?

But they were taken over by that evil group, because the possibility of such an occurance existed. Society had no real defence against it, because it's institutions allowed it.

[Freeski]

But they were taken over by that evil group, because the possibility of such an occurance existed. Society had no real defence against it, because it's institutions allowed it.

Right, because we somehow "allowed it". And why? Because we lost sight of the idea that I/we "have a republic, if we can keep it". But the powers that be decided to distract us and manipulate us into caring about things that matter far less than what really matters. So again, the idea of personal responsibility comes into play but they actively co-opt that with growth of government. Cut government services by 90% and we'll have a fighting chance.

I'd like to know where 'my say' was in that matter? Or yours. Sovereignty is the key, here, and I know it's a loaded term but who the hell ever gave the power to "some body" to tell us what we can or cannot do? Where did/does that "governmental power" come from? It did not come from the U.S. Constitution, or the Magna Carta, because both of those make it clear that the power belongs to the people.

[BrentonEccles]

Right, because we somehow "allowed it". And why? Because we lost sight of the idea that I/we "have a republic, if we can keep it". But the powers that be decided to distract us and manipulate us into caring about things that matter far less than what really matters. So again, the idea of personal responsibility comes into play but they actively co-opt that with growth of government. Cut government services by 90% and we'll have a fighting chance.

I'd like to know where 'my say' was in that matter? Or yours. Sovereignty is the key, here, and I know it's a loaded term but who the hell ever gave the power to "some body" to tell us what we can or cannot do? Where did/does that "governmental power" come from? It did not come from the U.S. Constitution, or the Magna Carta, because both of those make it clear that the power belongs to the people.

That's why we want to move to a cybernated system, because technology doesn't get lazy and decide not to be/get manipulated into not being responsible. Unfortunately, humans always have and will.

[mr anderson]

That's why we want to move to a cybernated system, because technology doesn't get lazy and decide not to be/get manipulated into not being responsible. Unfortunately, humans always have and will.

Again who controls / creates these cybernated systems? Humans.

SPOILER! For 2 movies 

This isn't Eagle Eye or Echelon conspiracy where the "system" decides itself to be a danger to human society and shuts itself down or backs off.

This cybernated system will be created, updated and controlled by a small group of people therefore it's questionable and highly suspect that we would allow machines to control certain aspects of government because essentially this small group that is behind the cybernated system will act through it.

And you can say there'll be safeguards, oversight and the 3 rules of cybernetics but this utopian fantasy has or will be co-opted and distorted by the establishment to fool and decieve those who are about to truly wake up to their crimes against humanity.

[BrentonEccles]

This cybernated system will be created, updated and controlled by a small group of people

It'll be done by anyone who wants to do it. You need merely only be educated in how to, say, be a programmer and you'll be able to be involved. Based on credentials rather than ideals.

But again, it's not going to exist to control or monitor people.

[mr anderson]

It'll be done by anyone who wants to do it. You need merely only be educated in how to, say, be a programmer and you'll be able to be involved. Based on credentials rather than ideals.

But again, it's not going to exist to control or monitor people.

Right.... and what safeguards are there so that it isn't there to control and monitor?

[37]

It'll be done by anyone who wants to do it. You need merely only be educated in how to, say, be a programmer and you'll be able to be involved. Based on credentials rather than ideals.

But again, it's not going to exist to control or monitor people.

If it doesn't monitor people and their needs then how will it know how to allocate resources to the needy?  

LALA Land...  

[BrentonEccles]

If it doesn't monitor people and their needs then how will it know how to allocate resources to the needy?  

LALA Land...  

Based on what they demand, and what they take.
The same way a webserver doesn't monitor you, it monitors your use of what it has to offer.

[mr anderson]

Based on what they demand, and what they take.
The same way a webserver doesn't monitor you, it monitors your use of what it has to offer.

The same way all traffic goes through the NSA but they only monitor keywords. 

[BrentonEccles]

The same way all traffic goes through the NSA but they only monitor keywords. 

Not really, because we wont monitor that sort of stuff.

[BrentonEccles]

Right.... and what safeguards are there so that it isn't there to control and monitor?

The non-existence of social structures that create  a propensity for people to want that.

[37]

Based on what they demand, and what they take.
The same way a webserver doesn't monitor you, it monitors your use of what it has to offer.

So, we get whatever we ask for?

[BrentonEccles]

So, we get whatever we ask for?

Yes, that is the point. Otherwise the technology would be dictating to you.

[Dig]

Stop going back to this, because you know it's empty.
The Communism 'issue' has been addressed so many times.

WTF are you talking about, have you seen the movie?

Please explain the "communist" issue in the movie.

The movie is hardly about "communism".  It is about revolutions that promise a "new man" and a "new order".  That promise efficiency and abundance for all, that promise utopia and good will to all mankind.

please watch the whole movie before sticking your foot in your mouth again.

we all watched at least 3-4 hours of the z stuff plus interviews.

I really do not understand how you can go on and on about how we should read/view stuff you are pushing yet you do not have the moral terpitude nor the courage to watch one simple documentary all the way through.  Could you please just be a little less hypocritical for the sake of being taken more seriously.  It would be deeply appreciated.

thanks.

[BrentonEccles]

WTF are you talking about, have you seen the movie?

Please explain the "communist" issue in the movie.

The movie is hardly about "communism".  It is about revolutions that promise a "new man" and a "new order".  That promise efficiency and abundance for all, that promise utopia and good will to all mankind.

please watch the whole movie before sticking your foot in your mouth again.

we all watched at least 3-4 hours of the z stuff plus interviews.

I really do not understand how you can go on and on about how we should read/view stuff you are pushing yet you do not have the moral terpitude nor the courage to watch one simple documentary all the way through.  Could you please just be a little less hypocritical for the sake of being taken more seriously.  It would be deeply appreciated.

thanks.

I've watched some of that "The Soviet Story" - not finished yet. But that comment of mine was no directed toward that film.

[37]

Yes, that is the point. Otherwise the technology would be dictating to you.

I want 5 million nectarines.

[White Rose Sophie]

Not really, because we wont monitor that sort of stuff.

And who is "WE", again?

[mr anderson]

Not really, because we wont monitor that sort of stuff.

That's what you say and I believe you but who's to stop a small minority from taking over and running it like Brave New World, Logan's Run or 1984?

[BrentonEccles]

And who is "WE", again?

All human beings.

[BrentonEccles]

That's what you say and I believe you but who's to stop a small minority from taking over and running it like Brave New World, Logan's Run or 1984?

Well, I don't think any of the technology we would utilise would be created with such a detrimental capability. People would have to literally somehow go "behind the scenes" and re-design the technology without anyone noticing. Basically you design something so it can't "go bad" or "break" or "chose redundancy" in the first place.

[White Rose Sophie]

All human beings.

Tell me, Brenton, do you believe that all human beings are basically 'good' - that they have just been 'corrupted' by a money-based financial system?

[mr anderson]

Well, I don't think any of the technology we would utilise would be created with such a detrimental capability. People would have to literally somehow go "behind the scenes" and re-design the technology without anyone noticing. Basically you design something so it can't "go bad" or "break" or "chose redundancy" in the first place.

Never possible, that's just life.

It can go either way.

There'll always be a way to corrupt technology to use it for good or bad.

[BrentonEccles]

Tell me, Brenton, do you believe that all human beings are basically 'good' - that they have just been 'corrupted' by a money-based financial system?

I think that all human beings are just that, humans. And that the culture shapes how they behave. A child learns to swear by being around others that swear. Advertising basically turns people into whores, and makes it socially acceptable, etc,.
At the same time, all that could go the other way to benefit.

[BrentonEccles]

Never possible, that's just life.

It can go either way.

There'll always be a way to corrupt technology to use it for good or bad.

Precisely. It's an inanimate object. But just because of that, doesn't mean that we shouldn't use it.

[37]

I want 1 million frying pans.

[BrentonEccles]

I want 1 million frying pans.

But that wouldn't be fair. I mean, if you want to produce the technology to do that, go ahead. But it would be pointless hoarding and you'd have no use for it and neither would anyone else.

[Dok]

But that wouldn't be fair. I mean, if you want to produce the technology to do that, go ahead. But it would be pointless hoarding and you'd have no use for it and neither would anyone else.

So theres no freedom for individual choice. There can be no individuals at all. we'd be a drain on the system and must be reprogrammed or recycled.