The Zeitgeist Movement - Podcast show now online!

Post Reply New Topic

Well, this will just be a case of biosocial pressures. As the economic downturn starts turning the screw further and further we will start seeing a rise in crime, poverty and possibly wars as well. Resources will become even more strained and prices will increase.

The only thing we CAN do as the movement is to be there as the pillow for these economic hardships and offer a way into a better future. At present we haven't got the numbers we need yet to do what we want to do. That's why spreading awareness is critical. Human beings are generally creatures of necessity. As long as they feel somewhat comfortable in their environment, they won't have any incentive to improve anything.

The pressures of scraping to survive will wear thin on society, and hopefully there will be enough people who are willing to stand up and say:

"You know what, to hell with this. I want a better world. Things are going from bad to worse, and I want my life back. I want my freedom."

As rich and powerful as the "elite" might seem, they only comprise about 1% of the planet's population. No army on the planet can subdue a critical mass which comprises the majority of the population that are equipped with the tools of analytical, critical and objective thinking. There's a hell of a lot more of us. Tough luck for them.

Time will have to tell with how we get from here to there. I gotta be honest and say that what happens from now to then is completely up to all of you. If we do nothing to push forward for an RBE, then I guarantee you, that an RBE will not materialise.

The Zeitgeist Movement is here as a pillow, or buffer if you will to the biosocial pressures that you will see growing all over the world during the collapse to offer people a way out. The reassurance that life doesn't have to be like this. To provide information and through that information, hopefully the motivation to actually bring these ideas to fruition.

what is being offered is the proposal of a shift in value systems towards the alignment with natural law, and the implementation of automated resource management so that people will ARRIVE at decisions as opposed to making them, and this in part will render the idea of "government" completely obsolete, and hense will be shed, along with all the other BS that we have been taught is mandatory and/or necessary. Not that governments are already obsolete. It's just the further they try to "govern", the more they show themselves up as such.

Personally I can't see any logical reason to "resist" us advocating, implementing, and enjoying a system where every human being on the planet is cared for. With time, the logic of this direction will become self-evident. The individual specifics of whether we pull together 1000 organisations with TZM and work to make it happen, or whether its achieved through TZM alone, it doesn't matter. The end goal is the same. To live in a sustainable, humane and prosperous way. And I think all of us who wish for a better world are ALL on the same page there.

Why would people "resist" the world coming together to share this planet and optimise everything so that everyone is cared for, everyone is provided for, everyone is liberated from life-wasting labour, and everyone is free to do what they want to do and be want they want to be? There's only two reasons why I can imagine people have a problem with this. First is those who have a severe case of capitalist conditioning that is staunchly against ANYTHING that impinges upon their illusion of a right to be a greedy, ignorant bully. They call themselves "free men" but that falsehood can only be maintained because the methods of control and states of corruption are hidden from the public to maintain the illusion of governmental altruism,

Also coz the public are conditioned to accept everything as the way it is and that any dissent is given the full force of law, so really, its just acceptance through fear and naivety. and

The mandatory use of money keeps people in line coz everything has a price-tag and your freedom only exends to the bounds of your bank balance.

They call THAT freedom, and yet they accuse an RBE of being an oppressive system. It really amuses me sometimes, and it's just blatantly obvious to me. But then again, I actually use this grey thing in my skull called a brain.

And the other reason would be that they are suffering from some severe moral distortion or psychological problem. Either way, as far as I'm concerned, if these people feel some need to impinge upon the freedoms of other people, they need to get help from a good therapist.

But overall, to answer this question I should put it into the 2 different contexts. First the state we are in currently where we are advocating this direction, and second when we are actually putting it into practise and "building" an RBE.

When it comes to the present day scenario, we encourage people to make up their own minds about whether they agree or not. The only thing we ask is that people do enough research in order to fully understand the proposals themselves and the supporting information, and hense have a fully formed and objective understanding of what we advocate. Then and only then can you make a fully formed decision in regards to whether this really is for you or not.

When it comes to when people choose to attack us, or launch hate and deception campaigns against us, and fortunately there are only a handful of dedicated individuals who are determined to smear us as far as they possibly can, we have to do what we can to make sure that while we respect their freedom of speech, we also recognise that there is a certain boundary of animosity and bullying that they teeter on and regularly cross. In such instances we must take objective steps to report such behaviour. It is not our job however to engage them, or attempt to reason with them. I know it is extremely tempting, I myself am guilty of falling to this temptation in the past, coz I am perpetually driven to try to reason with people, I mean I have wasted HOURS trying to reason with them, however there are some people who simply CANNOT be reasoned with. They have already made up their own minds about who and what we are and they feel the need to spread their message of hate and misinformation. As such it is a waste of our time and effort to engage these people coz their minds are too passionately set upon their goals. And no amount of logical reasoning is gonna turn them around. There are MANY more people you can talk to on this planet instead. When you realise that they simply refuse to understand or even research this, then you know its time to move on. It's very much like trying to debate with an evangelical christian. Completely futile coz the person you're trying to rationalise with is completely immune to logic and reason. So please, in other words, don't feed the trolls. These people will be more convinced when they see our statements and proposals actually becoming a reality. So yea. Just move on.

Ok, as for the latter scenario, that being the implementing these proposals in the physical reality with infrastructure and so on, the implication of this question is that an RBE is a mandatory thing. Its not. If you wish to live in a monetary system, then go right ahead. No-one's gonna stop you or hinder you. We only ask that you extend us the same courtousy. You know, if people want to live in an RBE, then they can live in an RBE. If they don't, then they won't.

So to sum up, to answer your question, to peacefully end resistance to this direction, we offer people a choice. To either live sustainably, and if you don't want to, then go off and create your own system.

As far as I'm concerned, the economy is on a collision course with collapse. And there's no amount of reforms that is gonna halt it. Our economy is one big pyramid scheme and its reaching its ultimate tipping point. You know, if you don't believe me, go and research what's known as "fractional reserve banking", which every bank in the world uses. There's a very interesting document released by the federal reserve bank in Chicago called "Modern Money Mechanics" which explains it fully. Just type "Modern Money Mechanics" into a search engine and you should be able to download a pdf version of it. But back on point, at present, we have a majority of the population that is either completely unaware of the collapse and/or any viable solution to the monetary system, or, simply does not care. And this was completely intentional on the parts of the media by the way. In today's society, we are pumped full of fear and the promotion of intellectual laziness by the media and through society. Watch any documentary that is critical of the media in this respect and you'll see. Outfoxed being a very good example. We are also bombarded with what is known as "perceived obsolescense" when the things we own are made to appear redundant, or old or "unfashionable" as quickly as possible by means of advertisements and the status orientation that certain "new" goods have as opposed to sticking with the "old" ones, irregardless of whether they still work or not. It doesn't matter if it still works perfectly fine, if it is not the latest model, then it has to go. Not owning up to date products is erroneously associated with a lower material and social status. So as a result, in order to allay that fear of ostricisation, and avoid the formality of being considered less than we are, we have to go out and keep shopping, and consuming and replacing. When you combine a dominant air of fear with a dominant air of rampant consumerism and materialism, the idea of looking outside the dominant frame of reference becomes a concept that is difficult, if not impossible for people to have time for, let alone fathom.

People seem to be quite cozy in their little bubble. But bubbles in the other definition are one of the things that is gonna bring down the structure of financial civilisation as we know it. There is only one thing that has the potential to wake up billions of docile, materialistic, apathetic consumers. And that is the complete, economic, ecological and geostrategic collapse of the planet Earth. And this collapse is what we are flat out sprinting towards. Remember the runaway train analogy that I used in my Dispelling Myths podcast? If you haven't heard it I would recommend it. Even if you have I suggest you go back and listen to that again, coz that is our reality now. I also suggest you look up a man named Michael Ruppert and take in some of the information he has on offer. I don't personally completely agree with all his predictions, but he has a lot of interesting and insightful information.

The change in economic paradigm will we very similar to, say a change in commuting habits. Say for example you spend 2 hours everyday walking to work, then 2 hours walking back home, but then you acquire a car and it only takes 20 minutes.

As the economic situation becomes more and more dire, the public will become more and more dissatisfied with the ever-growing disparity.

For one thing this isn't actually a case of convincing polititians of anything. It's the public who are our target demographic coz its the public who have the real power here, coz we have greater numbers. Besides, even when it comes to the elites, they will not be giving anything up. Every human being on the planet they will be GAINING a standard of living that exceeds even the lofty lifestyles that the rich and powerful enjoy.

I have taken great care and time to answer this in my previous Q&A shows. I can provide the answers people ask for, the formality I'm aware of is the fact that it is impossible to convince someone who does not want to see the validity and feasibility of an RBE, to see the validity and feasability of an RBE.

This is the point that I'm making. If you project into this idea, you are gonna contaminate your perception of it, and hense, to use a colloquial term, you ain't gonna get it.

This works with anything. So as I have said, I can provide the answers to your questions, however your choice to accept them or not, is contingent more upon your own personal will to recognise feasibility, or not. It is impossible to convince someone of this if they don't wanna know, THAT is why I don't bother with those closed-minded individuals anymore.

As for the “transition plan” part of your question, as I have stated in previous podcasts, none of us are prophets. And as such, none of us can lay out a concrete transition plan. We have to do this sort of thing on the fly as it were. If you wish for a concrete transition plan to be laid down and stringently followed, you’re gonna be disappointed.

Also if you care enough, Peter Joseph has done a radio lecture called "The Transition". I feel this information is good enough to spark your own research.

Ok, as for the latter scenario, that being the implementing these proposals in the physical reality with infrastructure and so on, the implication of this question is that an RBE is a mandatory thing. Its not. If you wish to live in a monetary system, then go right ahead. No-one's gonna stop you or hinder you. We only ask that you extend us the same courtousy. You know, if people want to live in an RBE, then they can live in an RBE. If they don't, then they won't.

So to sum up, to answer your question, to peacefully end resistance to this direction, we offer people a choice. To either live sustainably, and if you don't want to, then go off and create your own system.

There are winners and their are losers. Why should the winners help the losers who are ungrateful anyway?

RBS is the Royal Bank of Scotland. Among other things. I think you mean an RBE. Resource-Based Economy.

I appreciate your consideration of this. Its good to know there are some on here who are actually receptive and thibnk for themselves in an open manner. One thing I should correct you on though, is that "utopia" refers to a fixed end state of perfection. However this is impossible. We live in an emergent universe, meaning that everything from the movements of the cosmic bodies, to human thoughts and understandings are in constant transition. Perfection is impossible to attain because everything is always changing. Therefore there is no such thing as a "utopia".

You are absolutely right though. We as a species, are definately not intelligent enough for this yet. As George Carlin said:

"We are barely out of the jungle on this planet"

However we have shown great potential as a species. We have the capability to grow to that next altruistic level. We just won't be able to get there with all the evolutionary baggage that we cling onto. We gotta let that stuff go, coz when we think about it, it serves no purpose anymore.

a more egalitarian and resourceful society will only arise from conscientious revolutionary struggle. this would only ever result from positively educating and motivating the working and lower classes. otherwise there would no motive and no idea of how to actually carry it through. and even then it will be near impossible. history has illustrated this. the ruling classes have infiltrated every attempt so far.

personally i think the catastrophe fallout would result in an every man for himself scrimmage. think about it. people will be in panic. there will be huge shortages. they will no longer be spoon fed packets of food from the supermarket. the people don't know how to survive such situations. the surrogate tit of the media has rendered them no more than children feeding their atrophied brains on the next episode of x factor and celebrity wankfest or whatever the current reality tv smash is. there's no utopia arising out of that, i'm afraid.

I think you find it as such because it hasn't been satisfyingly answered by any Zeitgeist fan as of yet. That's why we'll keep making this argument until we get a clear and honest answer.

But you sure don't denounce it, do you? Saying "it has no solutions" could be interpreted as saying "it has facts in it backed up with lots of evidence but it provides no solutions anyway". I'm not satisfied with you just saying "it has no solutions". I want you to tell us it's full of errors and a lot of the claims it makes lacks the needed evidence.

So let me hear you say it.

Still no denunciation of the movie itself.

You put "inaccuracies" between quotes, indicating that you don't believe the movies are full of sh** (or at least the first one).

This is not straw-clutching. This is me waiting for you to actually say the first movie was full of crap. You said a long time ago you weren't a conspiracy theorist. So let's see you denounce the movie once and for all.

Why haven't you denounced that movie yet, Adam? If there's no link at all, and you're not a conspiracy theorist, what are you afraid of then?

I have argued against many of the claims made in that movie in various threads. Denounce the movie and I'll do my own denouncing for your satisfaction.

But my problem for now is with you refusing to speak against it. Are you a supporter of the first Zeitgeist movie?

I find it interesting that you didn't make it clear that you actually had intellectual integrity (contrary to what I implied).

it lacks any strategy whatsoever for implementation, other than to say they will be using "complex statistical systems".

and the ultimate goal of this movement involves a team of benevolent computers and engineers making all of our decisions for us.

so while there are (although adam disagrees without exactly explaining why), on the surface, similarities to marxism, the final outcome sounds something more akin to technocratic totalitarianism than pure communism.

thanks for your reply, adam.

but to sum up your reply in a short sentence in the interest of brevity, you hope capitalism will just go away if we all just talk about it like human beings?

sorry to be making so many posts in this thread but given that your replies are a tad long-winded it's possible i might skim over them and pick out certain parts to ask you questions on. i hope this is agreeable to you.

you appear to be of the opinion that a resource based economy can function as a single social unit within the larger world (surrounded by capitalist states or other small societies ordered by whichever means the participants choose).

do you really think this can work? sorry to go back to marxism/communism etc. but this is one of the main problems facing the communist idea. any "utopian" (for want of a better word) society would have to arise globally.

this is because in any other instance, such a society would simply be attacked and assimilated by the states which surround it. bakunin wrote very succinctly on the notion that states exist in perpetual antagonism and warfare. how would you imagine that an egalitarian society free of state authority, class and monetary systems could exist with antagonistic authoritarian states existing on all sides, without being constantly vulnerable and compromised?

a more egalitarian and resourceful society will only arise from conscientious revolutionary struggle. this would only ever result from positively educating and motivating the working and lower classes. otherwise there would no motive and no idea of how to actually carry it through. and even then it will be near impossible. history has illustrated this. the ruling classes have infiltrated every attempt so far.

personally i think the catastrophe fallout would result in an every man for himself scrimmage. think about it. people will be in panic. there will be huge shortages. they will no longer be spoon fed packets of food from the supermarket. the people don't know how to survive such situations. the surrogate tit of the media has rendered them no more than children feeding their atrophied brains on the next episode of x factor and celebrity wankfest or whatever the current reality tv smash is. there's no utopia arising out of that, i'm afraid.

Oh yeah RBS is definately not what we want. No more Fred Goodwins.

Only when humanity has learnt that competition is not always beneficial, and that co-operation is more beneficial will we be able to have a RBE. It will probably take a big catastrophe.

And if we think we could change democratically then it will still be a struggle because those in charge will not go quietly, they will be like little brats kicking and screaming and throwing their toys out of the pram.

Perhaps we need an ice age, or a sudden surge in volcanic activity and then people will start to rethink.

Since we live in an infinite universe we can have infinite growth.