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

[zafada]

I knew it was some fricking Blavatsky, Luciferian, voodoo, mind control, and planetary enslavement bullshit!

Yeah, he must be a witch..

We should see if he floats.

[Dig]

I know what you mean. And I see why you're so skeptical and afraid of what will happen. But technology will increase EXPONENTIALLY! The technology of today, as advanced as we see it, is going to be very primitive to humans a thousand years from now. That's what I mean by advancing. But it's not just technology. Our understanding of who and what we are will also advance. Our spirituality will advance.

The reason the elite are in control of that is because of the system that we now employ. How do we get rid of that system? I DON"T KNOW. The makers of Zeitgeist and the people of the Venus project don't even know. They have ideas. Boycotting is one. And I think it's a great concept.

The point is that we don't know what the future holds. But we can hope and work towards a world where we're all equal. Where there is no elite. Again, how is that bad?

Religion, technology and control grids aside, we are all human beings and we DESERVE to occupy this planet equally. Spreading the message that we don't need an elite in order to survive is a positive one in my opinion.

technology has already expanded.  The elites are hiding 40 years worth of technolofgical improvements at least.  Centralized control is a danger no matter where technology is.  Technology does not allow a human to become more spiritual.  The founding fathers knew an average of 7 languages, discussed very complex worldly items on spiritual , moral, ethical wavelengths.  Even the dialog in movies 50 years oago supercedes every movie today.  But technology has exploded.  The control over humans, slavery, feudalism is the issue and technology is simply an ancillary item to the issues of free will and human nature.

[Dig]

Yeah, he must be a witch..

We should see if he floats.

see if who floats?  you are referring to luciferians who conducted witch trials.  They are the same people who will be controlling the re-education programs.  kinda ironic huh?

[Pheonix Renewed]

I think that some people simply cannot get outisde of the paradigm of "money is required" etc. The problem is that it seems to severely upset them that other people can. They decide that those who can see outside of that paradigm want to force them to accept it-- the same way they want to force everyone to accept their paradigm. It's impossible for them to imagine a world in which no one forces anyone to live a certain way so long as they don't harm others. It's simply unfathomable to them, because they could never live like that. Live and let live? They say they can, but in practical application, they cannot, will not, and would not.

[Cipherscribe]

Not only can they not imagine it, Pheonix, they call it evil. If it's not what we're used to, must be the devil's work. How primitive can you get?

[Pheonix Renewed]

Not only can they not imagine it, Pheonix, they call it evil. If it's not what we're used to, must be the devil's work. How primitive can you get?

Yeah, same thing with peace, though. The only person in the world that really wants peace is the anti-christ. So if you want peace, you MUST want it only on the most evil possible terms, and you must be the anti-christ.

[Jackson Holly]

^^

So ... what will be the medium of exchange? Are you thinking barter only?

[Cipherscribe]

Exchange of what?

[Dig]

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

Excerpt from October 15th, 2008 Interview between Alex Jones and Zeitgeist creator Paul Joseph...
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):

NWO's 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. This is one of the first signs.

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.

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

*More on NWO's conditioning technology: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=62764.msg341789#msg341789
...Concerning the re-education and re-conditioning agenda (according to PJ and NWO literature, common man is solely a product of environment, so the NWO is actively researching ways to change the past/present/future environments for re-conditioning of the human):
"...James V. McConnell which was published in a 1970s issue of Psychology Today. He said, 'The day has come when we can combine sensory deprivation with drug hypnosis and astute manipulation of reward and punishment to gain almost absolute control over an individual's behavior. It should then be possible to achieve a very rapid and highly effective type of positive brainwashing that would allow us to make dramatic changes in a person's behavior and personality.'..."

**More on the Zeitgeist concept of "communal family" here: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=62764.msg341753#msg341753
...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.

[Cipherscribe]

OMG. 

It's about abundance, not microchipping, not 'conditioning' or anything else nefarious like that. Jesus, not everyone is OUT TO GET YOU!

[Pheonix Renewed]

...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.

I've already responded to the rest. As far as this... you heard what you wanted to hear. You ascribe things like "community" to the word "family" and state that that's what he meant... whether you know that's what he meant or not. You say, "he said family but he meant [what Sane wanted him to really be saying]."

[Cipherscribe]

Sane, you lost all credibility with that last post. Those are someone else's views on what they THOUGHT PJ was saying.

I watched that interview last night on YouTube. To be honest, PJ came across as intelligent, well spoken and presented his ideas very well...all this despite the ranting, raving, immature taunts by AJ. Again, I love AJ and I listen to him often but this interview was clearly not one of his best. He played music over PJ, which is very rude, he interrupted him several times and jumped around so much that it was like he was purposefully not listening to a word PJ was saying.

You sure you don't want to rethink that last post, Sane?

[Dig]

John Locke (1632-1704):
"The Philosopher of Freedom." (Quite an ironic title)

"Good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational creature: these are the spur and reins whereby all mankind are set on work, and guided." (Locke is basically saying that all humans can be programmed like Pavlov's dog to do anything that government needs them to do.)

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Locke.htm


Tabula Rasa & Empiricism:

Ultimately, in his acceptance of the existence of God, Locke was a dualist -- though only barely so; he did not consider man to be a divine creature fixed with ideas on coming into this world. Locke was an empiricist, viz., all knowledge comes to us through experience. "No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience." There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as moral precepts9; we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet (tabula rasa) ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions. Beginning blank, the human mind acquires knowledge through the use of the five senses and a process of reflection. Not only has Locke's empiricism been a dominant tradition in British philosophy, but it has been a doctrine which with its method, experimental science, has brought on scientific discoveries ever since, scientific discoveries on which our modern world now depends.

[Dig]

Sane, you lost all credibility with that last post. Those are someone else's views on what they THOUGHT PJ was saying.

I watched that interview last night on YouTube. To be honest, PJ came across as intelligent, well spoken and presented his ideas very well...all this despite the ranting, raving, immature taunts by AJ. Again, I love AJ and I listen to him often but this interview was clearly not one of his best. He played music over PJ, which is very rude, he interrupted him several times and jumped around so much that it was like he was purposefully not listening to a word PJ was saying.

You sure you don't want to rethink that last post, Sane?

How can I lose all credibility when according to you I lost it on the last page ???  I guess that is some kind of standard canned expression of yours, oh wee.

BTW, what exactly did you not like about this interview:

From Chocolaty:

Alex

Jones:

Without further ado I'm really excited to get to introduce to you Peter Joseph. Peter Joseph of course made Zeitgeist which I would say it the second most viewed video — just from my analysis — in internet history. I would still say Loose Change is number 1, but that's because it's been out longer. In the future it remains to be seen, but the two films definitely are the most viewed in viral history on the internet. And the maker, Peter Joseph, he now made a Zeitgeist Addendum — another two hour film, very well done, he works in professional T.V., and he did this on his own though it's excellent, and he went out and actually did a lot of interviews and things for it as well, not just internet clips that he combined for the first Zeitgeist— and I agree with about 90% of what is in the film. I think that the interpretation — the subtle way it's put out — people are going to misinterpret a lot of it. That was my point in criticizing some of it earlier in the week. I also think that it's another form of orthodoxy to make fun on a high horse of religious groups, people who are religious, because the human mind, the human sight and smell only picks up a very narrow spectrum of reality — that's been scientifically proven. There's a lot of quackery and superstition and cooky stuff going on out there, certainly! That's why I get away from organised religion myself, but I think that in a way it actually divides people that both films have decided attacks on religion especially Christianity, and I'm allowed to have that view and say that I don't particularly agree with that. I don't hate Peter Joseph because of his views, I don't look down on him, I don't even judge him. I just am allowed to have my view that I think that that is itself it a little bit closed minded. It doesn't mean that I buy into every superstition out there. And conversely people like to start fights between any big alternative media movement, icons or films. You know I have a lot of Zeitgeist people that attack me and say horrible things about me and they're not Zeitgeist people but people that are followers of the film or use the name as a maxim or a logo kind of like the shingle or the flag they fly. And there there are a lot of folks who call themselves Alex Jones listeners who viciously attack zeitgeist because of its anti-christian bent and then that's probably why the Zeitgeist folks are attacking me and then my people are attacking them more and then that kind of creates within myself a subconscious disliking for it because then I get attacked by a lot of extreme close minded Christians and muslims and religionists out there who get mad that my footage is in Zeitgeist. Well, he put it in there first and later he said "Hey can I use it?" and I said "Fine", and he has the rights to use the footage that he has in the first Zeitgeist now because I'm actually for open discussion out there and a lot of people found my work because of Zeitgeist because, you know, I believe that we can take good out of even things that I see as not effective or true in Zeitgeist itself. So with that said as my opening statement I want to bring Peter Joseph up on the air and let him have an opening statement about himself, Zeitgeist and where all of this is going. Peter great to have you here.

Peter

Joseph:

Thank you Alex. I appreciate you having me on and I'm glad you pointed out what you did. I think a lot of people listening to this cast are going to sit there waiting for some type of duke out between you and I and debate... debate is really an infantile disposition, I think discussion — an open discussion — is what we need to engage in. We learn from eachother and that's what a society should really be thinking when we engage ideas that are conflicting from one belief system to another. You know competition, things like this that we think are naturally bread into us, dispositions of winning, these are things I would like to address today. I know you have different dispositions as you stated in — for example — in your october 8th broadcast. And before I begin any of that however since you did bring up Christianity... first thing I don't... I am not attacking Christians whatsoever. I think that anybody who pays attention to what I've stated as far as the first film I go into the historical base [inaudible] of Christianity and then I linger into the philosophical dispositions and how it's very restrictive of the human mind. In the second film I detail how essentially the belief system itself is based on a rejection of new information and this is... this is very important and very difficult to deny when you get into faith-based ideology. And the whole... the whole encompassment, if that's a word, of the second film is to really try to pull people into a train of thought that's of mind[inaudible] with nature. And that's why I present the Venus Project and that's why I present these seemingly spooky things that people have been conditioned to fear such as centralization of power, but it's not centralization of power in the orthodox manner that many people think to be true or fearful of or what history has presented. Because the flaw of our society at its very core is that it has not addressed the root problem of what we're doing and those root problems are sourced in human behavior, not secret societies or elites or even human instinct. We have to look at the environment and what the environment is producing and that from there we'll know the resolution and that's what I'd like to talk about today with you.

Alex

Jones:

Well, Peter, out of the gates global warming has become a religion. The environment is important, the load of the earth is important but technologies as you and the experts you interviewed have rightly assessed ... we can transcend all those problems and that is being suppressed by the elites who want to continue a cartel or an oligopoly. But you know you talk about the load of the earth and, you know, running things according to the load of the earth... well the controllers, they're already using that and saying "we are going as a technocracy, as a scientific system, we are going to scientifically design society and we're saying carbon dioxide is bad" when that's what plants breath and one of the four major elements — light, water, carbon dioxide and oxygen — that make life possible here so see out of the gates there's that oversimplification. I think it's important to have the discussion it's just the way it can be interpreted — that's a religion too. There is a religious belief that carbon dioxide and evil and a toxic waste

Peter

Joseph:

Yeah there's also a religious belief that the free market is the end all to our progress as a civilization. They're all religious beliefs in their own accord if they're not addressed in a highly intellectual and scrutinizing manner. The best form of reference for that type of disposition or analysis, if you will, is what you refer to as the scientific method. Everything that we have — First of all let me counter one thing. Essentially, what you're seeing with this ruling elite that you refer to that of course they will use technology against humanity — the microchip, surveillance. We're seeing this randomly. Why? Because their social system is failing. They have to preserve the structure, at least that's my opinion and we can go into more details for that. However, they are totally out of line with nature. So what they're implying will never really work because it will just produce more instability that people will eventually rise up above it because the system is emergent and we're always learning new things and things that do not work as the emergence proceeds will be phased out. And this is where social stratification and all of these different elements come into play. You see, I'm not talking about, for example in your October 8th interview, excuse me your review of the piece you implied to your audience that there would be this eradication of the social structure. You remember when you said that? As though that someone's gonna come around with a gun and shoot people that are involved in the wrong type of social stratification. That is not at all what this idea is about whatsoever. The eradication notion comes from the disposition that human awareness, human value systems will be altered as the society is culminated in moral alignment with nature itself. Now that's a very difficult thing —

Alex

Jones:

Yeah well how do you gage the alignment with nature and —

Peter

Joseph:

I'll tell ya.

Alex

Jones:

— And what scientist or group is going to be able to develop the gage by which you set up that system.

Peter

Joseph:

Well... you can look at it from... here's a very oversimplified example but it gets the point across very easily. If you have a plot of land and you want to do something with that land — say grow something on it, build something on it — you're going to analyze the topsoil of it. The parameters of that land become self-evident as to what you can do on it. Now... we apply this to the planet you begin to see the resources that the society needs which can be assessed through surveying what is necessary for the society has a natural development and can occur naturally without opinion whatsoever because you're basing it on tangible resource management of the planet, that's why in the film I keep going back to the same point—

Alex

Jones:

Stay there, stay there we're gonna skip this break. Okay continue Peter.

Peter

Joseph:

— It's the intelligent management of the earth's resources that's needed. Now people don't understand what that means, they don't know what that means because they've been so conditioned to this completely artificial structure of money and labor for money, competition for labor and money for resources. This is a complete, this is a completely fictional disposition it's a false system because there's nothing but resources. And the ideology that will construct our new world, so to speak, is an ideology based on resource management as denoted through the scientific method. So with that plot of land has the resources available... the only way you can have unification — intellectual unification... excuse me let me back up, the only way you can have an abundance and an optimization of our world is if you understand what the planet had and you gage all of its resources, this is why an intellectual unification that Jacque Fresco talks about — world unification — it's not world government at all, it's an entirely different ideological disposition based on what's available on the planet, what the society needs and this is an extremely long winded conversation, I wish we had more time to —

Alex

Jones:

Yeah but who's gonna decide what humanity needs.

Peter

Joseph:

The question isn't who's gonna decide it's how will the decisions be made. It's an ideological based assumption based on nature, there's an imperical order that's been working in nature forever. For example anything that you have in your studio right night now, all the technology is derived from one processes and that's called the scientific method. Our society needs to be completely in accord with this, the parameters are self-evident once you get this train of thought going. —

Alex

Jones:

But there aren't gonna be people that quote "want to be in accord" and there's huge debates within the scientific method and so how are you going to bring something completely into accord or eradicate that?

Peter

Joseph:

Well, this is why human behavior has to be understood which is another very important point that we need to —

Alex

Jones:

Well I mean and I disagree with you that humans are fundamentally, you know, don't have competiton in them —

Peter

Joseph:

Okay, we'll talk about it —

Alex

Jones:

I mean that is all over the animal kingdom —

Peter

Joseph:

AH!

Alex

Jones:

that is the name of the game.

Peter

Joseph:

Sure! But why? Why does the animal kingdom have this?

Alex

Jones:

Because of resources —

Peter

Joseph:

Exactly! —

Alex

Jones:

— But also because of the design in our development within that system of competition, it is to deny how we were developped and what we have been developped to do.

Peter

Joseph:

Well I would have to respectfully disagree with that because there's no basis for that. Everything that we have that we think is derived naturally as far as human instinct... every form of human instinct that you see popularized by the modern day alchemist — the geneticist — that say you know they can find the genetic gene for smoking or genetic gene to be a republican. This is completely ignoring basicly everything that the environment has been teaching us. For example if I took... if you were taken as a little baby infant, brought over to the middle east, dropped off into a family that was moslem you'd be on the air speaking Arabic, praising 'Allah', and you'd have a show called info-jihad.

Alex

Jones:

*hahahaha*

Peter

Joseph:

It's completely, *hehe* , it's completely, it's completely arbitrary to the... I mean I'm not saying that there aren't kernels of elements in our lives that —

Alex

Jones:

Well wait a minute, it's not kernels. Conservatively more than half of our activities and motion is genetic in nature and then nurture is the variant that will change for the time and place and culture how your genetic information manifest.

Peter

Joseph:

Everything that we understand has been taught to us in some capacity especially our operations. Every word I'm saying has been taught to me. Every concept has been relayed in some capacity to me and through my mental operations which is a form of conditioning I have arrived at novel conclusions. My originality is simply because of the envionmental influences that are completely and utterly conditioned to me as opposed to everyone else. Everyone is different because they come from different conditioning in other words. This is extremely powerful and it's not fifty-fifty, it's probably ninety-ten. Our conditioning is everything and when we realise it the monatery system —

Alex

Jones:

Hold on we're going back to the full audience. Here we go.

Alex

Jones:

Talking to the creator of Zeitgeist 1 now Zeitgeist 2 Addendum Peter Joseph. *sigh* Peter I fundamentally — and we were just discussing this for the internet audience only when we skipped that break, we're back to the full audience now — I disagree with you fundamentally that human are trained and conditioned to be competitive. All higher species, mammals particularly, are competitive. It is at its base a genetic competitiveness to pass on the traits that made the species excess in its environment in our development. And then all the elite does is knows how to manipulate and punch those buttons, and condition those, and hone those, and bring up certain instincts that have manifested through societal developments and to overexpress others and to suppress others that they don't like. I mean, that's just... I fundamentally disagree with you on that point.

Peter

Joseph:

Well I wanna make a comment then that it's for the audience to decide of course and I think what people fail to realise, the geneticists fail to realise... what your world view isn't taking into account are the millions if not billions of years of evolution based on scarcity. All the animal kingdom has lived within scarcity. You have to have social hierarchy of a pack of lions. You have to have fighting because there's not enough to go around—

Alex

Jones:

And you have to have fighting today because there's always gonna be corrupt people, but some of the Zeitgeist followers say I can't even say what evil is because that's my Christian construct. No it's not... evil is destroying the planet, evil is killing life, evil is hurting the weak and the meek and the small, these are basic rules, you know, that what is anti-life, what is destructive of the tribe we call evil.

Peter

Joseph:

Well what is evil? Define it for me. What causes evil, what causes someone to behave in evil manner.

Alex

Jones:

Well I'm asking you do you believe evil exist?

Peter

Joseph:

Absolutely not! Because based on the definition of evil it's basically a religious connotation, it can't... it doesn't mean anything it's an empty distinction, if I was to redefine I'd say evil would be abhorrent behavior, and if I was to define abhorrent behavior I would say almost conclusively that abhorrent behavior is caused by the necessities of the environment.—

Alex

Jones:

But is it abhorrent to have elites through their breeding, through their culture who are hyper-aggressive and hyper-dominant and sadistic. I call satanist kidnapping a child, raping em for a month and cutting their heart out evil because that is evil according to the human code and evil according to us having safe happy tribes who can go on being scientist and creating which is the main drive and goal of the species.

Peter

Joseph:

Sure, nevertheless however it's always a product of conditioning. The people in the secret societies that you talk about that have grown up with their elitism, they are molded and shaped. Henry Kissinger, George Bush, these men brought up in elite system they behave in elite ways—

Alex

Jones:

That's right they send Prince Charles to boarding schools to be beat up, to be treated bad to make him a nasty person.

Peter

Joseph:

Well there you have it and this is exactly my point. So in order to fully change society, in order to really understand what's going on you can't use these outmoded words at least in my opinion I don't like to use evil because it has a generally religious notion that denotes—

Alex

Jones:

Look, look, look, look here's what I'm saying to you... I've read the social workers a hundred and fifty years ago. I've read the social engineers and the transhumanists and the posthumanists and they all say very close to what you're saying about this utopia — the machines, getting rid of our competitiveness — but then they bring in a hyper-competitiveness to dominate us when the social workers kidnap people's kids for no reason for the state to reeducate em it makes nightmares. It, I mean I've heard all this and people showing me fancy roads and models of spaceships and saying "we're gonna create a utopia and we're not gonna have money anymore". And then what is money vesus this monetary system you talk about with banker fractional reserve manipulation?

Peter

Joseph:

Well first of all, first of all there's no utopia. I want to get this out of the way, that's a loaded term just like evil, it has no basis. Secondly, the difference between the systems that I'm advocating, the system that I'm advocating versus the fractional reserve monatery system is multifaceted. First of all the monetary system... I went to specific detail to talk about how the fractional reserve system enslaves humanity distinctly with absolute acuteness because there's not enough money in the money supply to go around. Let's assume that—

Alex

Jones:

Yeah but you're saying it's a system failing, they designed it to consolidate power it is succeeding according to their aims, you're saying and your experts are saying society is going to fail so we'll have a new better system or a shot at it but to them the drug war, any of it, it's not failing, it is succeeding and they want to create a collapse to bring in more social engineering and their utopia. Okay, well you changed the topic a little bit from what I was talking about so let me address that. Basically, the collapse is not entirely a hundred percent rigged. What it is is a pyramid scheme that is tipping that they've been expecting for a long time and of course they're gonna capitalize on it. The fractional reserve system has to fail and that's what we're talking about. The monetary system has to fail because it's based on competition and self-interest and power monopolies just like in the second part of Zeitgeist Addendum where I talk about world monopoly—

Alex

Jones:

Well stop you right there, I'm gonna stop you right there. See, you can't even say you're wrong there. They fundamentally design these in endless ponzi schemes that always sieve out like a guy panning for gold in a river, the wealth. I mean it's in all their documents. Here we go we're gonna skip this break too we're gonna skip it right now. I mean go ahead and counter that, go ahead and explain to me, explain to me how it's not engineered by them.

Peter

Joseph:

I'm not saying it's not engineered per se. I don't... see, you, you make these leaps that I can't see how you can honestly stand behind with a hundred percent confidence. The fractional reserve system they knew what would happen to it but it created such a great level of differential advantage for their control, for the corporate structure and everything else... I don't think they wanted it to fail this is why the boom and bust cycle is what it is, it's completely contrived, I will admit that to you, but they have a very delicate balance right now because the people and especially in the west if the systems fail the way it should — the way it mathematically should — just like every bust should be about ten times worst that a really is but it's not because that's why the federal reserve was created, the lender of last resort—

Alex

Jones:

They always create a new bubble.

Peter

Joseph:

They, well of course they do. This is the way it has to work though it's a natural phenomenon, it's not as rigged as you think it is, because the money has to go somewhere but they do protect it and right now we're seeing the top of this pyramid scheme collapse and I think the elite eventhough they have their power consolidation they know that they have to walk a very delicate line because the public is gonna lose it. The public... they're gonna lose control of the public if they allowed a depression.—

Alex

Jones:

Eh actually sir eh, hold on hold on let's go back to what you just said there! The central banks are cutting of liquidity to the real market and the population of the world. They are then while telling the public the money's going to them, conduiting all the fiat currency to themselves while it still has some value while they consolidate real assets and BusinessWeek and the Financial Times of London properly say that this is actually good for that small inner group of banks to consolidate.—

Peter

Joseph:

I'm not saying it isn't Alex I was on the way to get in that I—

Alex

Jones:

Well I mean I got audio clips from the film is where I got that.

Peter

Joseph:

Well if you listen ot the first Zeitgeist I make it extremely clear about the interest of the international bankers—

Alex

Jones:

Look I overall think your film is healthy and good and thought provoking and great. It's just that I've always told my listeners "don't make what I'm saying a religion where I'm infallible" and, you know, question me and I'm saying, you know, that no work can be complete, none of it can be perfect. I'm hoping here —and I'm sure you've got things you can teach me — to open up avenues of discussion and refinement, not in your overall idea but in how people are interpreting it. Because certainly you know about the socialists and the fabian socialists and the engineers, and H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell and all them saying about ninety percent of what you're saying at the end of Zeitgeist Addendum, but overlaying it with government central control to be able to construct it.

Peter

Joseph:

Well I couldn't disagree more based on the fact that what has been presented might sound like socialism, it might sound like marxism because of those kernels of element of having a system that's designed for society as opposed to everyone fighting eachother in order to survive in this monetary system based competition illusion that's been created. The difference is, the entire foundation of this is that it's related to science purely. And think about all the early fabian socialists and all these guys whatever their intent was, negative or positive, they had no concept of what technology is and neither does half the people on this planet —

Alex

Jones:

Alright stay there, stay there. Full audience right now, here we go. Hey let's keep this rolling underneath our guest [music]

Alex

Jones:

Alright stay there, stay there. Full audience right now, here we go. Hey let's keep this rolling underneath our guest [music]. I'm gonna try to control myself and just sit here and write notes and shut up for ten minutes. Peter Joseph, creator of Zeitgeist, and you just run with what you're really saying overall — trying to encapsulate it all — and then I'll come in with some of my primitive musings here — my feeble mind will try to grasp it. But again I wanna say overall I think your film's healthy and thought provoking — I think these discussions are important and people shouldn't allow institutionalized religion or anything to shutter their intellect from trying to grasp the whole width, breadth and depth of this multi-faceted, multi-variate universe that we swim in — so creator of Zeitgeist you go ahead you've got the floor.

Peter

Joseph:

Alright well the first thing we need to discuss is the monetary system itself, and the system that is underlying... or the belief system that is perpetuated by this structure. The greatest failure of our society for thousands and thousands of years is to not address the root causes of human behavior, and the monetary system has created one of the worst behavioral complexes that society has ever seen. It is compounding age-old instincts which have very little relevance to progress at all including things like competition if I was ever to call it instinct I'd say it's a natural culmination due to environment. If you're put into an environment of scarcity where there's no work, no jobs you're going to be forced to steal. Your abhorrent behavior is a creation it's not inbread whatsoever and I can defend that on multiple levels but I'm gonna move on, talk about the system itself — the monetary system . It doesn't matter if it's free enterprise, it doesn't matter if it's communistic or capitalistic or socialist, these are loaded terms based on... based on...basically outmoded ideologies that are no longer relevent. What we have is a system of competition that's inherently based on the assumption that humans beings must fight with eachother in order to survive; that is one. The second point is that human beings have to have incentive in order to be motivated to do something. And these are two extremely dangerous and ill-gotten perceptions of human behavior. The first mode[inaudible] to the effect that... to the effect that human beings need to have incentive — I'll go to that one first — is human beings motivation can come from many different places. When you're a child you have all sorts of interests that you pursue — you have any... all sorts of creativities that you find fascinating — you don't know what money is you don't need incentive to do something. Einstein and Galileo — all of these great men that contributed — they didn't need money as incentive to do something — this is something they did on their own accord. Unfortunately the brainwashing of society has forced people into a disposition that they want to be rewarded for what they do —and that means they want monetary compensation. No one will do anything in society without reward — and that includes solving social problems — If you can't make money off solving a social problem in this system it won't be done. — And that is a very very sad state of affairs. The first part — the first mention that I made — was[inaudible] humans have to fight to compete for labour and income — the scarcity that exists in this system — this is created by the monetary system not only through the fractional reserve system but in the very structure itself. You can't have a society and expect progress and civil arrangements — ethics, decency, whatever you want to call it — morality — in a system where everyone is gaining off of everyone else through differential advantage. This... this can't work, it doesn't work and it's never going to work. This is the why the world is what it is today. Almost exclusively based on this competitive notion that is compounded and perpetuated by the monetary system. And this is the greatest failure that people don't understand. This is why I argue against it. I'm not saying that the Venus Project — and they're the first to admit this as well —  is the end-all — there is no utopia . But they recognize this core element that is corrupting human behavior, so we have to move out of this system. One of the things that people don't realise about the monetary system which is very important — I think you should think about this too — at least in this... this fabled free enterprise system specifically — is that it always leads to corruption. We say that free enterprise system is... you know... it could be great it could be pure. You could have a perfect free enterprise system and it would work. Well, there's no such thing as that because it automatically leads to corruption. It automatically leads to oligopoly and monopoly. It automatically leads to abhorrent behavior and power consolidation because that's the basis of it. That is the guiding principle of differential advantage. In order for society to progress you have to eliminate this differential advantage and all the social stratification that occurs because of it. All the materialism. We have an advertizing system that sits there and tells us that our value is based on what we own and how...what... and artistic representation is... our creativity is what we own[inaudible]... who we are — our identities —.are what we own. And this is at a colossal and tremendous distortion that needs to be overcome. So, the basis of this arguement is that we have to have a new system that gets rid of these tendencies. This thing called the New World Order that people talk about all the time — and I actually would like you to come back on the air and answer a question for me — and that is: What is the New World Order —as you define it Alex?

Alex

Jones:

What is the New World Order as I define it?

Peter

Joseph:

I want... well, what is it in a concise definition tell me what it ... if you were to explain it to a... to someone who never even heard of such a thing in a real concise manner what is the New World Order.

Alex

Jones:

It is a hereditary clan that rules through the fraudulent fractional reserve monetary banking scam that operates through intelligence systems and shadow governments.

Peter

Joseph:

And their goal is what?

Alex

Jones:

Their goal is hyper dominance and to control the past, the present and the future to set up a worldwide police state by manipulating people's primitive fears with manufactured terror threats, biological threats, chemical threats. Their end-game is to exterminate... well most of them now say 99% of the population — the public documents say 80%.— and to create then a machine utopia where the elite and their progeny go to the stars. It is a worldwide eugenics cult that is in control of most the resources on the planet and is eradicating the family and the free market and then of course demonizing the free market by claiming this corrupt system they have is a free market, and are now in the final phases of their worldwide consolidation —their victory — which people are calling a collapse or failure.

Peter

Joseph:

And what is the path you think everyone should take to stop this New World Order.

Alex

Jones:

The path is multi-faceted. We have to take control of our local political units first. We have to stop the electronic voting machine fraud system. To do that we have to discredit the system — discredit the corrupt government that all the parties have been bought and paid for — we've entered a very deep sector of the corruption — on the graph one of the deepest points in the troth —

Peter

Joseph:

— Ok well what about the people though? What about these people that are the ones that are perpetuating this? What is your solution for these people? What do we do with these people so to speak? I mean what is your—

Alex

Jones:

Well I don't like bloody french type revolutions which then turn into something almost even worst. I think they need to be identified, exposed and then they need by juries of their peers. They need to be given fair trials and sent to prison and then their assets need to be nationalized to pay off all the fiat debts they have created. We need to have a population where we don't restrict Madison Avenue telling us we're inadequate so they can sell us products. We need to become conscious of these motivations and decide with the discernment what is a good advertisement, what is a bad advertisement. In your film you talk about — or some of your experts talk about — how we can't... you know basically in a free market or in a system of selling a vase or selling a car, or selling a house or... you know getting our kidney taken out, we can't trust anyone. Well, no, we need to learn to investigate and go to references and... you know that's why within the past we had brand names... you know a [word?] machine that was known to last longer and be better. That way... if this is not free market slave goods coming in from China that fall apart in five minutes. And so I disagree with that fundamentally. There's just so much I disagree —

Peter

Joseph:

Ok well —

Alex

Jones:

— well I mean let me stop you —

Peter

Joseph:

Ok —

Alex

Jones:

— I disagree so much fundamentally... you know with saying we just can't trust the free market and products and goods because people have a reason to lie to you to sell you crap because somebody might have something better then that stops people from progressing when it is the limited free market though invaded and corrupted monopolies through government help... you know, that have been set up, that we do have societal development — technological development — because people do want gain by their inventions and they do want the prestige. And it has been our competitive renaissance free market — the Yeoman Farmer becoming a tinkerer, becoming an engineer, turning loose the native intelligence of the commoners — that has created all the amazing things we see around us, but that's at the by-product of making us decadent and selfish and Madison Avenue through brainwashing to secure the elite as they try to come in with a counter-revolution to take over the renaissance that is taking place and so they have damaged and programmed the majority of the public and so we need to at a cellular level, those of us that are aware, try to wake up our friends, family, neighbors, communities and at a cellular level one cell at a time heal the system with an exponential growth curve towards doing that.

Peter

Joseph:

Ok. Let's step back to my original question which was about the New World Order. So basically you're saying—

Alex

Jones:

I told you what they are a hereditary kings who learned who learned how to go underground—

Peter

Joseph:

I'm commenting on this. This is my... this is why I wanted to ask the question. Basically—

Alex

Jones:

I thought you were posing it again. You said "I go back to my original question".

Peter

Joseph:

No no no I just wanna go back and address it because you've gone on a nice tangent which I appreciate but eh... you moved what my original response was going to be—

Alex

Jones:

Well it's a complex world, takes complex solutions.—

Peter

Joseph:

Well of course

Alex

Jones:

—I'm giving you actually analyzed information — things that have been thought out —

Peter

Joseph:

Of course. Well let's... let's... let's—

Alex

Jones:

—not general... general ideas—

Peter

Joseph:

Let me um... let me comment if you don't mind. Basically, your assumption then on the New World Order is that you have to have the public to wake up to this elite group that are trying to dominate things and then you have to prosecute them and put them in jail and take them out and that will be the resolution that you basically—

Alex

Jones:

That will not be the total resolution but... but... but... but yes we have a... just like the Nazis they had to be taken out or you know... finally... finally the communist chinese said Mao and his wife are nuts — killing everybody because they made a deal with these eugenicists in europe — we gotta arrest them, you know... we gotta arrest his wife.

Peter

Joseph:

Ok. Well, here's a difference — I know you're going to disagree with it but I think it's good for your audience to ponder this. The genetic basis, the heredity basis that you assume is very much unsupported because as I said these secret societies are secret societies. They culminate... they culminate who they bring in and everyone is conditioned into a particular world view but the secret societies are also conditioned in of themselves. Their conditioning comes from somewhere. And my point to you and to your audience is that the New World Order is not some elite sect of people. If you took out every single person at the top of the so called Illuminati—

Alex

Jones:

The system is still there and more people would step into those places like shark teeth, that's not what I said. I said take the consolidated—

Peter

Joseph:

Why? Why?—

Alex

Jones:

Because that's how they've been conditioned, that's how the system's been set up and they are... you know, coming from that same mindset, they want that power—

Peter

Joseph:

So, it's the environment. It's the environment isn't it Alex? It's the environment.—

Alex

Jones:

Well, I never said the environment wasn't part of all this—

Peter

Joseph:

I know you didn't but you implied initially

Alex

Jones:

—but I'm saying we as a people are competitive and you have malfunctioning hyper... I mean, here's an example, I try not to be that competitive and lift people up and bring them in and then I find out as soon as they think they're a big shot they turn around and attack primitively thinking in competition if they knock me — the king monkey — off in this movement that somehow that will make them the king monkey, but that isn't the case because in reality I'm not even eh...you know, the king monkey in all of this. So I'm saying competitiveness is a good thing overall, it just has to be... we have to be conscious of it and we have to have rules and parameters in it and then have a eh... you know, playbook basically that societally we agree on and that we're constantly changing. So I mean... I mean... I mean this whole thing of trying to say that innately aren't aggressive and that... and that, you know, we are... I mean no matter what culture it is little girls innately start going and building a camp and start breaking up wood and practicing making dinner and I mean you can take a girl, you know I try with my girls have them play with toy guns, and army men, and soccer, and football. I want tomboys and you know what they don't like that they go directly for the pink barbie and it isn't culture because they're not allowed to watch T.V.

Peter

Joseph:

Well, *hehe* I think I would have to see those instances and conditions. I really have to... I can't relay this—

Alex

Jones:

This is ridiculous! Why does a... why does a sperm whale go south in the winter? Eh... I mean it is genetic, I mean... why do geese know how to fly according to the magnetic poles. You are saying—

Peter

Joseph:

Why do birds build a nest? Why do birds build a nest?—

Alex

Jones:

Yeah exactly, you're saying—

Peter

Joseph:

Well, I'll tell you why—

Alex

Jones:

— {you're saying} instincts have nothing to do with it, this is insane—

Peter

Joseph:

It's imprinting, it's imprinting. The bird builds a nest because it's born in a nest. You took a bird immediately out of the nest—

Alex

Jones:

Oh my God. *hahahahaha*—

Peter

Joseph:

you have... no, this is what science proves Alex—

Alex

Jones:

How does a garden spider know how to spin a web?

Peter

Joseph:

*SIGH*

Alex

Jones:

I mean what are you t-... let me tell you bro, you got some major issues that are wrong and I'm telling you—

Peter

Joseph:

No

Alex

Jones:

—you're influential ahh ahh ahh ahh [i.e. please let me finish] you're influential and that's a good thing because the alternative needs to become you know, the majority and I'm all for this but I'm telling ya — and I'm not even looking to argue with you here today —

Peter

Joseph:

No you are—

Alex

Jones:

—I'm telling ya man you... does the mommy spider teach the spider how to do that? Does a... I mean... I mean...I mean, are elephants... do elephant bulls fight with eachother... you know, for dominance for the best mate because they saw their daddy elephant fight?—

Peter

Joseph:

No because they live in scarcity and that's what their instincts... that's what their instincts of survival—

Alex

Jones:

*sigh*

Peter

Joseph:

— {that's what their instincts of survival} have to culminate in order to survive in their environment—

Alex

Jones:

Look you can't take the spider out of the spider. You can't take the man out of the man.

Peter

Joseph:

Look, *hehe* Humans are very different from other organisms on the planet — we have the ability to think and create . Our instincts can be changed whatever that means. There are no actual human instincts — and I have tons of science to back this up . Especially the human being who is so malleable—

Alex

Jones:

*sigh*

Peter

Joseph:

—so easy to pro... influence, if you don't believe that—

Alex

Jones:

No, I... I...I... no, no—

Peter

Joseph:

—take a look at the news and how people are—

Alex

Jones:

You're missing it, I agree with you. I believe that's seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. It ma- —

Peter

Joseph:

Did you just say that competition—

Alex

Jones:

—hold on... hold on... hold on... hold on... makes us innately different is that we can transcend and rapidly change and we are not completely frozen into instinct like animals. I'm just saying that there are those two parts.

Peter

Joseph:

There are. The one very much overshadows the other — and that is the conditioning; that is the environment . We have to change the environment if we expect the world to change. Ladies and gentlemen you're not gonna get anywhere by building more prisons, getting more police and making more law. These are—

Alex

Jones:

I agree with that, but Ahh ahh ahh stop! stop! The social engineers want to put people in prisons because they own them and they wanna have slavery so this is the way to legalize slavery and say "we catch you with this compound — that's addictive that we ship in — then we're gonna put you in our slave pit." You're acting... you and your... because I've been watching you film and watching other people that support what you're saying and it's the view that the elite are dumb and stupid and they don't know what they're doing and they're idiots and more cops and more prisons aren't gonna work...—

Peter

Joseph:

No

Alex

Jones:

—Of course it's working! More people in prison, more slavery, more control it's working beautifully!

Peter

Joseph:

Sure, that's one angle to look at it but nevertheless the public is conditioned to think that these institution are actually true and real institutions. And not all... not every stratified element of the prison system are a bunch of elites sitting there talking—

Alex

Jones:

No... no, the low level morons that have lost all their other factory jobs and wanna work as prison guards in there... you're absolutely right. They've been forced through engineering into that evil economy that corrupt, that bad, that anti-human, that suppressing... grabbing some black kid because he was caught with cocaine the government shipped in when he's fourteen years old because the MTV tells him it's cool with the bling culture and throwing him in a tiny cell to now be trained how to be a hardcore criminal. That is evil against the human code of nurturing and growing and training and building and reaching for the stars! There is evil and I will declare abortion evil and I will declare us special, I will declare us a divine species in the image of God and I will not let the technocrats or anybody else tell me that because I know we're going to the stars and I know our destiny is great and I know a little black kid having pesticide tested on them until they die is evil!

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

I think there is maybe 20 more minutes that have not been transcriped yet.  But you can see that there was at least a 50/50 amount of time for each person to form their arguments.

I thought it was one of the best interviews that I have ever heard.

[Cipherscribe]

No, it was a fantastic interview! I remained riveted the entire time. I wasn't saying it was a bad interview as far as the subject matter. I was saying it wasn't AJ's best as far as his composure and candor. He came off a little immature in a few parts. But PJ hung on tight and did very well considering the circumstances. I give PJ props for hanging on as long as he did.

[Dig]

I've already responded to the rest. As far as this... you heard what you wanted to hear. You ascribe things like "community" to the word "family" and state that that's what he meant... whether you know that's what he meant or not. You say, "he said family but he meant [what Sane wanted him to really be saying]."

Well what do you see in the following quote:

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."

[Dig]

No, it was a fantastic interview! I remained riveted the entire time. I wasn't saying it was a bad interview as far as the subject matter. I was saying it wasn't AJ's best as far as his composure and candor. He came off a little immature in a few parts. But PJ hung on tight and did very well considering the circumstances. I give PJ props for hanging on as long as he did.

Which parts did not reflect something with AJ's composure and candor?

Which parts reflected the stamina of PJ?

Was it the part where PJ let out a disgusted sigh when AJ was going to play the HG Wells clip from "Things to Come". It was very childish of PJ to get frustrated that such an important piece of historical information was going to be shown.  BTW watch Things to Come, it will show you clearly that this is a 100 year old plan (at least).

[Cipherscribe]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_/ai_n28860281

Through community involvement, scientists, engineers, and
   other professionals visited the school and were visited at their work site.
   Also, parents were involved at school and at home. The whole attitude was
   shared responsibility. As stated in an African proverb, it takes a village
   to raise a child.

Just one interpretation. Everyone has an influence on a child's life, not just the parents.

[Cipherscribe]

Which parts did not reflect something with AJ's composure and candor?

Which parts reflected the stamina of PJ?

Was it the part where PJ let out a disgusted sigh when AJ was going to play the HG Wells clip from "Things to Come". It was very childish of PJ to get frustrated that such an important piece of historical information was going to be shown.  BTW watch Things to Come, it will show you clearly that this is a 100 year old plan (at least).

AJ completely lost his composure when he started ranting and raving like a five year old about how he was competitive and started saying "You want me to take the gloves off, I'll take off the gloves."

PJ showed his restraint by remaining calm, until he sounded like he was about to lose it, then remained calm as he stated his case intelligently and clearly.

the HG Wells clip had NOTHING to do with the interview. Those certainly aren't PJ's views. The HG wells clip was about going to war and it was about seperation, completely the OPPOSITE of what PJ was trying to say. That's why he sighed; because AJ wasted time with such a clip completely out of left field.

AJ kept saying PJ had an alien head, at one time calling him a pot head haha and PJ just said he didn't appreciate it.

Definitely a +1 for PJ

[Pheonix Renewed]

Well what do you see in the following quote:

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."

I see, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

[Dok]

I see, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

I really didnt expect that answer from you. Could you elaborate a little more please.

[Denton]

The Venus-Project, designed for you and your higher consciousness.

[Dig]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_/ai_n28860281

Through community involvement, scientists, engineers, and
   other professionals visited the school and were visited at their work site.
   Also, parents were involved at school and at home. The whole attitude was
   shared responsibility. As stated in an African proverb, it takes a village
   to raise a child.

Just one interpretation. Everyone has an influence on a child's life, not just the parents.

So from: "the family will become the group community" You interpreted that? I still do not understand why the group is needed.  I mean, the group could be chosen. The group could be selected by the parents, but why does he say that the family "will become" the group community? Why will it change and what will it change to?

[Dok]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_/ai_n28860281

Through community involvement, scientists, engineers, and
   other professionals visited the school and were visited at their work site.
   Also, parents were involved at school and at home. The whole attitude was
   shared responsibility. As stated in an African proverb, it takes a village
   to raise a child.

Just one interpretation. Everyone has an influence on a child's life, not just the parents.

All it takes is 2 loving parents, a Mom and a Dad. You dont need Bob the barber from down the street.

[Cipherscribe]

It's about the community coming together. That's it. At least that's what I got from it. Positive.

[Dig]

AJ completely lost his composure when he started ranting and raving like a five year old about how he was competitive and started saying "You want me to take the gloves off, I'll take off the gloves."

PJ showed his restraint by remaining calm, until he sounded like he was about to lose it, then remained calm as he stated his case intelligently and clearly.

the HG Wells clip had NOTHING to do with the interview. Those certainly aren't PJ's views. The HG wells clip was about going to war and it was about seperation, completely the OPPOSITE of what PJ was trying to say. That's why he sighed; because AJ wasted time with such a clip completely out of left field.

AJ kept saying PJ had an alien head, at one time calling him a pot head haha and PJ just said he didn't appreciate it.

Definitely a +1 for PJ

Ummm have you ever seen the HG Wells movie? It talks about the end of all wars.  Please watch it, I am sure it will be an eye opener.  PJ accused AJ of something that PJ does more than AJ (the madison avenue marketing nonsense).  And AJ even gave PJ the rights to use his material and make a profit off of it.  Then PJ starts with the Madison Avenue stuff it was a bit ridiculous considering all of the strobing evil eye stuff and spooky music.

Definitely +10 for AJ for not letting the hypicrite go on unexposed

[Cipherscribe]

All it takes is 2 loving parents, a Mom and a Dad. You dont need Bob the barber from down the street.

Ah, but everyone who that child comes in contact with has a direct or indirect influence on that child and has a hand in raising it to a certain extent.

[Dig]

It's about the community coming together. That's it. At least that's what I got from it. Positive.

the community?

Like the commune?

I wonder if their is an economic/political philosophy that could enforce this.

[Denton]

Zeitgeist IV: Hocus Bogus  

[Cipherscribe]

the community?

Like the commune?

I wonder if their is an economic/political philosophy that could enforce this.

Are you playing daft to start arguments? Communism infers an elite caste system. Not pertinent. Next.

[Dok]

Ah, but everyone who that child comes in contact with has a direct or indirect influence on that child and has a hand in raising it to a certain extent.

uHH, no they dont. Just because a child meets some one, that does not mean there is a lasting effect. What is proposed in ZA is comune living where there are no parents, and no children. Everyone is one big family. That would be more detrimental to a child.

[Dig]

Are you playing daft to start arguments? Communism infers an elite caste system. Not pertinent. Next.

It does?  The people who fight and die in communist revolutions do not know this explosive piece of information.  How is it that communism infers an elite caste system but a scientific technocracy doesn't?

[Cipherscribe]

Last post. Because obviously you've made up your mind.

First, communism has a leader. It's still a money based system.

Second, without money, there is no elite because there would be nothing to have power over.

Third, with abundance there's no competition so there are no wars, no rules, no laws, etc.

Just like Phoenix said, It's a system unlike we've ever had before. Will it work? Who knows? Is it a good idea. Most definitely; mostly because the system we have now is broken. As long as people are starving and suffering, another way must be found.

Fourth, the philosophy presented by PJ and the venus project are going to take a VERY LONG TIME to work, if they even work at all. They are merely ideas. They are a project, nothing more.

Take it or leave it.

[Dig]

Last post. Because obviously you've made up your mind.

First, communism has a leader. It's still a money based system.

You might be thinking of totalitarianism. Communism is an economic theory (that has evolved into a political theory).  It is an idea, a plan, nothing more.

Second, without money, there is no elite because there would be nothing to have power over.

Money is only a tool to deal with the exchange of goods and services. This desire for exchange is not because of money.  Money provides a tool of communicating that desire of exchange.

Third, with abundance there's no competition so there are no wars, no rules, no laws, etc.

There is abundance right now.  We have artificial scarcity not due to money, it is due to greedy elite psycopathic maniacs.  If you get rid of money, they do not go away.  They already control much of the land, sea, and air through illegal and unconstitutional treaties (not money).

Just like Phoenix said, It's a system unlike we've ever had before. Will it work? Who knows? Is it a good idea. Most definitely; mostly because the system we have now is broken. As long as people are starving and suffering, another way must be found.

Yup, and it is important to look at the root of the suffering not just some random leaves on the tree like "money", "freedom of religion", "sovereign states", etc.

Fourth, the philosophy presented by PJ and the venus project are going to take a VERY LONG TIME to work, if they even work at all. They are merely ideas. They are a project, nothing more.

Take it or leave it.

I truly hope that you are right on that one (as far as very long time).  I am not sure what "work" would look like though.

[Denton]

"This shirt, my fellow higher beings, will be used as a model for the uniform designed for our new world order, we call it the Venus-Project. I hope you like it, because if not you'll be put in a reeducation-facility with all the other seperatist-filth who didn't like the design of my universal haircut. However, in this new era of hopping unicorns, rainbows and bubbles we all be eqaully forced to like it or to hate it. It depands on what the actual trend is."

[Dok]

"This shirt, my fellow higher beings, will be used as a model for the uniform designed for our new world order, we call it the Venus-Project. I hope you like it, because if not you'll be put in a reeducation-facility with all the other seperatist-filth who didn't like the design of my universal haircut. However, in this new era of hopping unicorns, rainbows and bubbles we all be eqaully forced to like it or to hate it. It depands on what the actual trend is."

 

[Pheonix Renewed]

I really didnt expect that answer from you. Could you elaborate a little more please.

Well, in certain spiritual teachings, it is important to remember that all of humanity is family, basically. To love everyone in the same way that you love your family. Now, let me give some examples, before everyone jumps down my throat.

Let's take an extreme case, because that makes it easier to understand with fewer misinterpretations.

Let's say Bob, whom I have never met, breaks into my house. I respond by knocking Bob unconscious, because I am protecting my family. But, by virtue of being human, I see Bob as a brother of sorts. Not literally, but perhaps spiritually. Instead of beating him in rage while he's unconscious, I tie him up and call the police. The police come and get him, and take him to jail. Why did I choose to do it that way, instead of beating him as he surely deserved? Because I see him as family.

If my brother broke into my house, I would subdue him with the least amount of force possible, and send him off with the police. I wouldn't beat my brother.

This doesn't mean, however, that I would allow my real brother, or my spiritual brother, to harm my child or my husband. They are "immediate" family, versus spiritual family. If you make me choose between you and my immediate family, you yourself choose to put yourself in a position of importance beneath theirs in my life.

But because you are still "family," I will try to do the least harm I can to you. Because I understand on a deep level that all "evil" that people do comes from a place of hurt. People become thieves when they have been harmed in life in some way. So for this, I have compassion. Wise compassion, though. Not compassion that makes me put Bob ahead of my immediately family.

The first responsibility I have is to my immediate family. But I can still love Bob simply because he's a human being. I can see him as a brother, and have the same forgiveness and understanding I would have towards my real brother, if I so choose.

This doesn't mean I shield him from the consequences of his terrible decision. Indeed, quite the opposite. Anyone who's been through al-anon learns something basic about love... it's LOVE to allow someone to experience the consequences of their decisions. They must learn on their own. But I can make that choice out of love, instead of vengence / revenge. I can choose to let him experience the consequences of his choice becuase it's good for him to do so-- not because I want to see him GET HIS FOR WHAT HE DID.

As someone who has lost more family than I have right now, I understand in ways that other people may not, the difference in the way that most people love their family and then "love" others. I don't know a single person today, that I knew just 7 years ago. Not one. Yet many people throughout my life have told me that they love me "like family." But is that the love we have for our family, where we forget about them and let them go their way, and don't bother with them again?

When you learn to love all of humanity in the way you love family, you will put forth that extra effort to help Bob understand why theft is bad. You would put forth the same effort to help him that you would family. Not because you're related to him, but because he's part of the "human family."

And you wouldn't put other people over your own immediate family. It's just that you would love others ALSO, and to the degree possible, you would care for them as you would family.

The neighbor down the street is sick? What would you do if your sister or mother or father were sick? You would help them. You would give up some TV time and go sit with them. Whatever. Things that most of the world doesn't do for strangers or neighbors, only "family."

I take my daughter to visit the retirement center every week. It's not always easy- sometimes it's hard (snowing, time is running out, whatever). But I do it anyway, and I make sure it happens. Why? Because that lady is "family," even if I'm not related to her. Because it brings her joy to see her dear little "honorary granddaughter."

I don't have family, so I make family where I can. I do that by doing for those who, often, even their own families don't treat like family.

Sorry to get on my soapbox, but honestly, that's what I heard in that. Treating all of humanity as family. Going that extra mile for them, just like you would for your own immediate or blood-related family.

It doesn't mean that you put them ahead of yourself or your loved ones. It just means, IMO, that you see people as worthy of your love and you try to understand and care for them, just as you would those who ARE your family.

You still get married, you still have children. You still protect your children, and nurture them. But if you're on teh way to the mailbox one day, and you see the neighbor's child beating up the other neighbor's child, you step in. You don't just not care about it because "it's not my kids." If you see the neighbor fall down, you go help, you don't "mind my own business." And if you see the neighbor went to jail, you go visit the neighbor in jail. Not because you condone what they did, but because, that's family, and family needs love and compassion and understanding.

The thing is, we don't all need to be PARENTED, but we all DO need to know that we're loved by someone. And if you know someone who has no family, you can make empty promises. Or you can really, honestly, be family to them. You can do the hard work of going to visit them as if they really are your family. You can go to the neighbor's house and bring them dinners when their baby has died. You can go to the funeral with them, just because you give a damn, and hold their hand or even hug them as they cry.

That's what family does.

But that's also the way we CAN, if we WANT TO, treat each other, even if we're not technically "family."

[Kilgore Trout]

I believe we are all truly connected to everything else. We are not separate from God, we are God's artful expression, our ego creates the illusion of separation , it is a survival mechanism. I Consider my self Gnostic. I guess I am Theosophist...?

[Jackson Holly]

WHO IS PETER JOSEPH?


Director Peter Joseph speaking at Artivist's Opening Night
and the Global Premier of his film, "Zeitgeist Addendum".

http://www.artivists.org/

Presenting The 2008 Artivist Award Winners!

"ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM" 
Director: Peter Joseph
Best Feature - Artivist Spirit Award

Premiering his highly anticipated sequel to "Zeitgeist." The failure of our world to resolve the issue of war, poverty, and corruption, rests within a gross ignorance about what guides human behavior to begin with. ‘Zeitgeist-Addendum' addresses the true source of the instability in our society, while offering the only fundamental, long term solution. Director Peter Joseph has the ability to take risky subject matter and turn it into a visually, emotionally, and intellectually compelling case for a "greater point of view." "Millions of people gravitated toward Peter's first film.  We are excited that this year's Artivist Film Festival will provide a platform to once again, pique the curiosity of millions of viewers and continue the dialogue about topics concerning citizens worldwide," stated Artivist Co-Founder Dr. Bettina Wolff.

ON RECEIVING AN ARTIVIST AWARD:   "I am absolutely honored.  Artivist is a role model for the media industry which placates people with "numbing entertainment", as opposed to films that inspire and challenge them, which is what Artivist is really about." 

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

Above is one of the few rare pictures of the guy. DENTON: Is that another pic of him (from AJs studio) in your post?

Apparently many people are trying to track down WHO he is - what are his motives - who is backing him, if anyone - and why all the mystery, dude?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_Movie



Produced by    Peter Joseph
Written by    Peter Joseph
Distributed by    GMP LLC
Release date(s) 2007
Running time    122 min
Language    English
Followed by    Zeitgeist: Addendum

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

Note the distributor is given as:  GMP LLC. Here is the State of NY entry from public records.

http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.
ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=2724855&p_corpid=2703094&p_entity_name=
GMP&p_name_type=%25&p_search_type=BEGINS&p_srch_results_page=2

Notice that James Coyman is the only person named under the GMP LLC ownership.

Is PETER JOSEPH the same as JAMES COYMAN? If not, who IS Mr. Coyman?

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

First, from a page from the ZEITGEIST site:  http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/q&a.htm

Who is Peter Joseph and how did Zeitgeist come to be?
Peter was born in North Carolina to a middle class family.
He later moved to New York initially to attend art school. Currently he lives and works in New York City as a freelance film editor/composer/producer for various industries.

Zeitgeist came into existence as a personal project which was shown in New York as a free public awareness expression. After the event was over, "The Movie" was tossed online with little thought given to a public response. Within a month, the film was getting record views. Months later, the "Final Edition" was completed. In total, the views for "Zeitgeist, The Movie" have exceeded 50,000,000 on Google video alone. Considering the other posts in different formats, along with public screenings, it is estimated that the total world views are well over 100 Million.

In Oct. 2008, "Zeitgeist Addendum" was released as a continuation of the first film, focusing on the core issues relevant to the subject of human corruption, while in turn offering a solution. As of two months after its release online, the average daily views have been 50,000, making a total of 3,000,000 views total thus far.

There are people online who say Peter Joseph is a fake name. Is this true?
No, this is not true. There has been a propaganda campaign against the project from various sources, one of which took the name GMP LCC and blindly punched it into a business database in NY and came up with the name "James Coyman" from upstate NY. What they didn't realize is that G.M.P. LLC is a reference entity from our registrar and is not the GMP LLC of James Coyman. We apologize to James Coyman if he has been bothered.

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

What does "reference entity from our registrar " mean? Does anybody know? Does anyone have more information on who he is?

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

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

Do unto others. Great message! However, as long as there's scarcity, people will always have competition against each other. There will always be some who don't have enough and will then resort to crime and theivery to get what they want and need.

When there's abundance, when there are no haves and have nots, there won't be a need for crime, to steal, to compete. It's a fantastic and out there idea, I get that. I'm not saying it's perfect or that it will even work within our lifetime or even within two thousand years. But it's a system that should be tried. For humans to be civilized, this system would need to work. You see what I mean? As long as we have poor and indigent, we'll always have crime and wars. That's not civilized. A free system inately creates a poor caste. It's like musical chairs; someone's going to go without. How can we advance when we're holding down some of our own by the very nature of the system in which we live?

so Liberty isnt enough? you think Liberty causes scarcity? i dont get it, youre saying Liberty is a great message but we should do something else because of some fantasy of a technocratic utopia of possibly generations into the future that we're going to somehow wish ourselves into? i dont get it?

cant you see, Liberty is how we would get to abundance, not fancy talk of "managing our resources in harmony with the earth"  (not a direct quote) or "when we arrive at abundance, all will be well" (paraphrasing).

Z and ZA ideas are wishy washy at best, i relate them to when i hear obama say stuff like "lets hope for change we can believe in, yes we can"