The Zeitgeist Movement - Podcast show now online!

Post Reply New Topic

What has that got to do with our consumption habits here on the finite planet Earth?



So you have acknowledged that colonising other Earth-like planets is nowhere near our capabilities at this point in time. So do you think Earth's resources will last until then at an ever-increasing rate of consumption while providing enough at the end to transport us all to this other planet trillions of light years away? Don't be so ridiculous. Howabout we learn how to take care of THIS planet first? Howabout that? Howabout we learn that preserving what we have HERE will erradicate the need to abandon ship to another finite planet on the other side of the cosmos?



Where did those ratios come from? And again, what the hell does this have to do with our consumption habits on Earth and the fact that we live on a finite planet?



Yet again, what the hell does this have to do with our consumption habits on Earth and the fact that we live on a finite planet?



Yet again, what the hell does this have to do with our consumption habits on Earth and the fact that we live on a finite planet?



Exactly. So don't you think that if we have the capability to do what you are stating, we could actually figure out how to NOT use this planet's resources up? Don't you think that feat is within our "godlike powers"?



Yet again, what the hell does this have to do with our consumption habits on Earth and the fact that we live on a finite planet?

Brief reply just to point out that you have contradicted yourself again, Adam. You said previously that those who wish not to take part in the rbe can go off and set up an alternative money based society but now you are saying that an rbe has to be global in order to work.

What I said is that an RBE is global by its definition. It would be optimal that way. Besides, when you have people wasting their lives yet again for mere worthless pieces of paper and scrimping and saving and still not having a life that they can be proud of, let alone actualy LIVE, what do you think they will be thinking about those who won't have to work because machine automation can do it better and help liberate humankind? What DISGUSTING level of indoctrination, delusion, preservation of the current abusive system would keep people from thinking that they should not even BOTHER with perpetuating a monetary system at all?

Metaphorically speaking, why would someone spend the rest of their life, walking 10 miles to get water from a well, when they are fully aware that their neighbour has it piped into their home and accesible through the turn of a tap? Do you think the first person would want to keep fetching the water due maybe to some convoluted form of stockholm syndrome because they have been taught to "like" their slavery?

Or do you think they would ask their neighbour if they could have water piped into their house as well?

My point is, when the world is shown how efficient, productive, liberating, enjoyful, stressless and beautiful such a high standard of living can be in an RBE, the question is not IF people would prefer to still live in a monetary system, but rather WHY THE HELL would they prefer to still live in a monetary system?

So, basically, you lied to us when you stated earlier that you were not a conspiracy theorist. And for the claims I disagree with, well, we can start first with the Jesus copycat sun god bit.

My problem with Acharya S' view is that it lacks historical evidence and is even contradicted by the historical sources we have.

I find it amusing when peaople try to paraphrase me. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. What we find about certain "corruptions" are not a result of any "conspiracy". It is merely business as usual.



Which is what sources exactly? Tell you what, this is what I posted as a status on facebook on Dec. 25th this year and the year before that:

"HAPPY BIRTHDAY Horus (c. 3000 BCE)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Osiris (c. 3000 BCE)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Attis of Phrygia (c.1400 BCE)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Krishna (c. 1400 BCE)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Zoroaster/Zarathustra (c. 1000 BCE)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Mithra of Persia (c. 600 BCE)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Heracles (c. 800 BCE)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Dionysus (c. 186 BCE)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Tammuz (c. 400 BCE)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Adonis (c. 200 BCE)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Hermes
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Bacchus
HAPPY BIRTHDAY Prometheus
Jesus, however, was born sometime in June, probably the 16th, according to most scholars, but is celebrated on December 25th because some early church leaders wanted to seize the enthusiasm from crowds already gathering on a day holy to many people."

Of course, this is all a "conspiracy" that isn't based on history, isn't it? lol

So the 9/11 events were not an inside job, right? Or do you believe they were.



Well, it's not based on historical evidence. Since you made the claims here, post some evidence backing what you said up. We can go step by step. Start with Horus. What can we know about Horus in the Egyptian myths and legends that we have access to and that supports the claims made in the video (provide reference for us to check).

only point 2 and 4 would be antagonistic to communism. the rest of them actually support my contention.




who are the we you refer to? i find this unlikely, since the us constitution and bill of writes were proposed before marx was even born.



sorry if i have overlooked such explanations. to make it clearer, i have actually read ideas proposed by the zeitgeist movement with a view to introducing a resource based economy. and this is where i mentioned earlier lack of social critique and understanding of class antagonism. there is mention of such things as setting up sustainable farming communities, automated factories, etc. and it does touch upon the notion that interested parties will not simply allow this to happen. they go on to say:



besides rejecting the notion of violent revolution (which i would hold is the only means by which capitalism can be overturned), this above statement is troublesome on several levels. firstly, it takes us back to the last question i asked you. a resource based economy is not going to be able to exist in isolation. it will simply be overthrown by the states surrounding it. it can't happen. marx and many others understood this. see bakunin's writings on the state. in fact, this was one of the key factors in the ussr becoming a totalitarian regime, stalin's belief in socialism in one state. it simply can't happen.

the second solution given here clealry exposes the general problem a lot of people have with the zeigeist movement. it is simply imprident to believe we will wake up one morning and collectively decide to dissolve capitalism and the state.



what you are describing here is, by definition, technocracy.






but i don't think i am wrong about this.


likewise!

Was 9/11 the only false flag terror attack to ever occur? Or was 9/11 the only false flag terror attack to be given such momentous implications, where anyone who follows every single syllable of the official story (which I think is the real "conspiracy theory") is considered trustworthy and a true patriot, and anyone who in the very least thinks that there are certain questions that need to be answered is immediately slapped with the tin-foil hat wearing, jumping around in a paddeed room, crazy, nut-job "conspiracy theorist" label?

You do realise that this is ythe same sociopsychological tool to rally people into mobs to burn women accused of being witches, right?

Personally I have moved on. I do not think it would matter either way, or change anything even if it did come out that it was an "inside job". Coz what would happen? Would there be a revolution? Would we be building the gallows again to publically hang Bush, Cheney and Blair? I don't think so. Things would just carry on as usual. They may get sent down in some obscure court, however the media would comp[letely ignore it. They have been proporting the official story for over a decade now, the media aren't about to do a 180 on this.

When you step back from this, you notice something. Coz while I recognise that 9/11 was a deeply tragic and sorrowful day because of what happened, however that isn't because of the fact that 3000 people died. It is because of the effect that had on society. 9/11 certainly wasn't the first event where public perception was to be steered towards a certain mentality. And when you step back you will notice that TEN 9/11s happen every single day in the form of childhood deaths at the hands of preventable disease, and the conditions of poverty. But that seems to go unnoticed, doesn't it? You wanna know why? Coz it is drawwwwwwn out over a long period of time, not to mention it is glossed over in the media. 9/11 was a short, sharp, brute-force attack on the human mind and emotional faculties. And it was done so deliberately. To have the maximum effect of "terror" even within the goldfish-like attention spans that we are continually being reduced to with mass media entertainments.

So really, what relevance does the events of 9/11 have on how we can move forward? That is why I don't really discuss it anymore. We need to grow up and move on.



How is that a source? I asked you for a source.



Since it is evident that I have to post up the link again, here it is:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf



What contention? That an RBE is marxist, or that it is technocratic? You really should make your mind up here. It can't be both, you do know that, right?



I mean society who were indoctrinated into western values. And Marx did not "invent" communism. It existed long before he was born. Keep that in mind please.



Judging from your responses, there are terribly wide holes in your knowledge of this. Why do you think I'm going back and forth correcting you and filling the gaps in your knoweldge of this?



Not necessarily. This implies egalitarian farming which is used in countries like Italy, which while I wholeheartedly supprt, does not allow for the wonderful liberation that advanced technological automation can provide. Have you heard of verticle hydroponic farming?



Interested parties will simply not allow this to happen? Who?

they go on to say:



I have covered this in my recent posts here. Please read what is addressed before you make the same arguments yet again.



If that is what you think TZM thinks then you clearly have no understanding of our train of thought.



Like I pointed out earlier, you need to make up your mind whether an RBE is marxism, or technocracy. It can't be both.

To point out a fe flaws in your argument, technocracy is defined by a "government" made up of scientists and engineers. These individuals become the "ruling class" as it were because the average person is not educated to arrive at their own decisions and thus the belief is harboured that the decisions are best left to the "experts".

This is the OPPOSITE of what an RBE is. If you knew the first thing about an RBE is that decisions are arrived at through the scientific method by ANYONE. Yes ANYONE can contribute towards the working of society and have their proven contributions put into practise. Everyone is educated to know that while their contributions are beneficial to society and hense also themselves, they are also completely voluntary. If you want to put it a certain way every human being is part of the "ruling class".

Doesn't sound very technocratic to me. Also, technocracy also is characterised by a monetary system in the form of energy tokens/credits. Does an RBE have those? I would love to see you prove that. lol

With this in mind, are you gonna keep arguing that an RBE is a form of marxist technocracy?



Read a bit further where it describes the monetary system used by technocracy. An attribute which by the way is completely abscent in an RBE.



I'm fully aware that you don't. The question of "what if I'm wrong?" hasn't even entered your head because you cannot bear to be in receipt of incorrect information. If you HAD considered it, and hense were less dogmatic and less ignorant about this, then you may have said something along the lines of:

"That's a good point. I will make a point of reading up on this then I'll come back to you since I'm not in possession of all the data right now."

You're already fully invested in your argument and you have already resorted to ignoring certain facts and cherry-picking information so that your case will be supported. I don't think that by this point, as vehemently as you have argued this, that you will be capable of admitting that your information and hense your stance on this is wrong. Because you feel that it would mean that you are wrong.

that large parts of it resemble marxist communism.



well you actually used the term marxist/marxism. of course there were ideologies with resemblances to marx's ideas. i'm not sure if you're talking about primitive communism, as marx himself described, or more recent stuff like more's utopia etc, but "modern communism" (i.e. what marx wrote about) and even the term "communism" itself was clearly a product of the 19th century, as it is by definition something that can only exist as a progression from advanced capitalism.



you aren't filling in any gaps in my knowledge. what you are doing is dodging questions.



i have, yes.



capitalists?



no you haven't you never answered it in any satisfactory way at all, you did, in fact, dodge the question and contradict yourself.


it was taken straight from a zeitgeist movement page.



it can resemble, and have elements of both.



you really think this can happen? so, if a pleb such as myself proposed an idea that i claimed was arrived at through the scientific method, the high faluting engineers and scientists who control the "master machine" would simply accept this? what if there are disagreements? who over-rules who?



now i don't support technocracy in any way, however your argument here is a red herring. energy credits as proposed by the technocrats are very different from money. they don't represent wealth, rather they simply measure the amount of energy consumed by an individual as a means to allocate resources in an equal way.



well no, i'm not saying it's marxist at all. it is a form of technocracy. there are strong elements of marxism with some very important aspects removed (i.e. how the goal will be achieved and certain elements of the proposed social organisation that i believe represent the basic ideas of technocracy).



see above.



i don't need to read up on it, adam. i am aware of the facts. my opinion on it simply differs from yours, and it is my belief that i am correct.




not at all. i am not dogmatic in my beliefs, adam. and i don't think i've ignored any facts at all. i don't agree with the idea that energy credits can be considered a monetary system. as proposed, they cannot be collected as a means to accumulate wealth. they are simply distribution tokens. if this is the only distinction between your rbe and technocracy, then i'm afraid they amount to the same thing.

However it is also technocracy as well, right?



*sighs* I use the term in reference to your assertions of an RBE being marxist. The wording I used in reference to the assertions that the bill of rights was "communist". Is that clear enough, or shall I repeatedly stop you in your tracks to equivocate?



Of course you wouldn't think I am filling any gaps. As far as you're concerned, you know everything, right? Hense why you project that I am "dodging questions". You, who wishes to "skim" over my posts and only address what you want to address whilst avoiding everything else accusing me of "dodging questions". Don't make me laugh.



Good for you. I notice that you have avoided addressing this issue here that I have in fact shown that you are wrong in your assertion that "farming communities" are built in an RBE.



Is there such thing as cancerists? No, of course not. Because anyone with half a brain knows that cancer cannot survive beyond the death of its host. Capitalists can say and do whatever they like. I was once a capitalist in a moderate fashion. However when I did the necesary research I realised that infinite growth on a finite planet is mathematically unsustainable. That is why no capitalist has been able to answer this question without squirming and trying to change the subject and evade the task of answering the question.



You have therefore proven my assertion that just because you are not satisfied with my answers, somehow this gives you carte blanche to assert that I have avoided the question. One of an internet troll's main weapons by the way.



Where on the page? Can you provide a link and point me to the exact quote which caused you to make this assertion? Because for you to come away with that assertion there are only 2 explanations. 1, you completely misunderstood what was there, which is quite likely since you have grossly misunderstood quite a lot here, or 2, you actually got it from an anti-TZM website.



Even if that were true, then maybe you should ask yourself: So? And your point with that is?



*facepalm* I had a feeling you would leap upon this strawman. Maybe you need to re-read what I put here. Tell you what, I'll state it again, with key words boldened for emphasis:

"technocracy is defined by a "government" made up of scientists and engineers. These individuals become the "ruling class" as it were because the average person is not educated to arrive at their own decisions and thus the belief is harboured that the decisions are best left to the "experts".

This is the OPPOSITE of what an RBE is. If you knew the first thing about an RBE is that decisions are arrived at through the scientific method by ANYONE. Yes ANYONE can contribute towards the working of society and have their proven contributions put into practise. Everyone is educated to know that while their contributions are beneficial to society and hense also themselves, they are also completely voluntary. If you want to put it a certain way every human being is part of the "ruling class"."

So you see what would be required for proposals to be put into the processes of the systems. Technical knowledge in the necessary field and the ability to show the optimal nature of the proposal. If you knew anything about an RBE you will know that EVERYONE has access to the education of their choosing so they can gain the technical and functional expertise and "operational credentials" as it were to be able to prove to the cybernated system that their proposal is optimal, and as such, their proposal will go into effect, and that person will become part of the interdisciplinary team dedicated to such a task.

For someone who "knows enough" about an RBE I seem to have to do a hell of a lot of explanation for you.



FIAT currency doesn't represent wealth either. Neither does it represent resources or even huamn well being, or what is known as the "life-sequence of value". Money today is a complete contrivance of monetary policy, HOWEVER it is STILL considered a monetary system. I sense your lack of understanding of what the term monetary system actually implies. Today we have a form of the monetary system known as "fractional currency". Before that it was pieces of paper representing gold stored in the goldsmith's vault known as "receipt currency" and before that it was items such as stones, shells, leaves, and other objects which were seen to have inherant physical value, known as "commodity currency".

All these systems of exchange are known as differing levels of what is known as the monetary system.



Back-peddling and denial are amazing to witness.



NOW who's the one dodging questions. and avoiding information. I have clearly explained what differentiates technocracy from an RBE. Shall I paste it in here again so you can see what you have "skimmed" over? The fact that you do not agree does not change the fact that I have explained the difference.

as contradictory as it seems, yes. many of the things you espouse do indeed resemble communism. however your "final solution", where decisions are reached scientifically by computers and engineers in retro-modernist "thunderbirds" style cities is certainly technocratic.

why is this so hard to understand? the russian revolution was fuelled by marxist/communist ideology, yet it delivered a totalitarian regime, far removed from marxism or communism.



not really. it's still inaccurate, as even the term communism has origins only as far back as early c19 france.



no, i don't think i know everything. and yes, you are dodging questions. i'm not skimming your posts, the reply in question was typed quickly as i did not have a great amount of time, i've read everything you've typed in here.



didn't imply they are built into it, i noted that they are outlined as part of the transition plan. it came from here:

http://web.archive.org/web/201003221947 ... ition_Plan



whether there are cancerists or not, there are undoubtedly capitalists. this is a prime example of you dodging questions. i mentioned that your rbe will not simply fall into place since there are powerful factions with a vested interest in preserving the status quo (capitalists) and you reply with the above?




but you quite clearly ARE dodging questions, with the point directly above being a prime example.



see the link provided above.



what do you mean, what is my point? this is the fundamental point of our inquiry here. that the zeitgeist movement propaganda appears like a sort of lite "bitesized" marxism but with the ultimate goal of a technocratic society couched in communist terms.



yes, i understand what you are saying. you don't have to explain it again. but what i am saying is, how do you imagine this working in reality? you appear to believe that since everyone will have access to relevant education, that there will therefore never be any disagreement in what should be implemented. if this is NOT what you are saying, then i still await a satisfactory answer to my question. how will disagreements be mitigated, if there is no superior power and everyone is equal in their opportunity to make proposals?



indeed, yes. and what all of these monetary systems have in common is the ability to trade, store and accumulate, which, going by any technocracy literature that i have come across is not in any way how energy credits are proposed to work. technocracy, it's failings aside, is certainly not in favour of wealth accumulation and conspicuous consumption, as a cursory glance at thorsten veblen's theory of the leisure class will elucidate.



they are, but you are not really witnessing them here, i'm afraid. i've never said the zeitgeist movement is marxist. i have said from the start that elements of it strongly resemble marxism. and they do. primarily in the antagonism pointed out between capitalism and the future functioning of humanity, the requirement of a need-based economy and the dissolution of government as we know it and monetary systems.



yes, you've claimed that technocrats advocate a monetary system. you have also claimed that technocracy implies government. maybe so, but i find it impossible to believe that your rbe model would be completely devoid of hierarchy in decision making based upon my simple point stated above.

good day.

I really hope MCalavera makes you go through it point by point. Dr. Glenn Peoples did, in his podcast here: http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress ... zeitgeist/

Also here is a good thing on copycat theories http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress ... -theories/

Sorry Adam, the first zeitgeist cannot be taken at all seriously, you are better off divorcing it from your other ideas.

Dude, maybe you didn't get the memo, but Zeitgeist: The Movie was never a part of TZM's material. Zeitgeist: The Movie, and TZM's material were never one to be divorced in the first place.

You see, that is what I find so ridiculous about some of the claims of you people. You try endlessly to allude some connection between Zeitgeist: The Movie and what TZM advocates. Its comically tragic how people still don't get how they are completely different things. If I were to link something for someone to understand TZM I wouldn't even link them Addendum or Moving Forward. I would link them a relevant piece of TZM's material.

Interesting who is 'you people'? It was your post that had supporting material for the first movie. If you are so concerned with people taking your position out of context why did you made little effort to provide any? If they are not the same thing, why are you saying things in support of the second movie and posting links to bad info on the first? My side point was that if you want us to treat these issues separately, stop conflating them.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care if they are linked. I care that you posted a position, one that defended the claims of the first movie. Now when I put forward meterial that runs counter to your position you flat out attack me for conflating two issues. I did not even mention the RBE or make any attempt to deal with TZM. To make a case based on the supposition that I am conflating issues, which is irrelevant with regards to my central point and provides no logical grounds for dismissing it. Remember, that it was you who raised the position, I just responded to it; to then give me an aggressive spiel about not getting memos issues is disingenuous. If it is fair for you to put forward evidence, it is fair for me to respond and I am quite unsure what exactly it was I did to provoke such a strong reaction.

Who even brought the issue of the first film into the recent discussion here in the first place? It certainly wasn't me. I posted up the source guide for the first movie because someone was asking for sources for the first movie's assertions, woooooooo, big deal. Get over it. I never bring the first movie in on these discussions because it is not even relevant.



Because someone asked for sources for the first movie after bringing this irrelevant topic into the discussion.



Actually no, if you bother to read back, it was not me who even brought the first film into this.



The memos thing was a turn of phrase. Did you not understand that? Its ok, we got our wires crossed about that. No hard feelings, right?



If I remember our previous encounters you are far from amiable in your responses.

Maybe I need to make something clear. This thread concerns TZM and my podcast show. It does not cover the first film. I'm sure somewhere here on WP there is a thread about the first film. If you feel that strongly about it, then revive that thread. I have repeatedly tried to assert that the content of the first film has no relevance to this discussion, for the reasons I have already explained.

I have said all I will on the subject of the first film on this thread. Any further discussion of the first film on this thread IS a conflation of the two issues.

Adam you say that we are no where near having the technological capability to colonize the stars? In the 1920's they told Robert Goddard that it would take a thousand years to put a man on the Moon.