Zeitgeist 4 where are we now
Report Abuse/Infringement 1 Seeds 0 Leechers349.94 MB
Peter Joseph's July 25th 2009 Zeitgeist Movement Lecture: London , UK
The Zeitgeist Movement | Speaking to an audience in London, UK Peter Joseph, director and founder of The Zeitgeist Movement, spoke on the subject of present social conditions with a lecture posing the question “Where are we now?”
Dec 06, 2009, 01:04:02
Number of files
55m 42s ago
While I think we should be extremely cautious in censorship, Zeitgest is clearly a ridiculous, intellectually vapid video series that is doing a dis-service to serious scholarship and real activism. I think it is hurting society to promote this shit, so I ask that this site systematically censor anything supporting the Zeitgeist nonsense.
Dec 09 2009, 07:27 CET
There is no reason you can't drop your liberal lefty or libertarian righty stances and realize that movements like Brights, Pirates and Zeitgeist have leapfrogged them and join on board towards great success.
The future awaits you with open arms let go of the politics of the past, they are divisive.
enough censorship has been done to the quantum physicists layman presentations here, there need not be more of the same, less you will stifle creative thought and cause your own alienation like an old outdated dogmatic religion, trust me you don't want to be seen as a 'mormon'
Dec 09 2009, 09:19 CET
Yessss, and so have Truthers, Birthers, and the Oath-Takers.
Yessss, the future DOES AWAIT US. But what future is that? Zeitgeist / Venus really does remind me of Scientology.. so you'll excuse me of I'm just a bit of a skeptic.
Dec 09 2009, 11:12 CET
wow. you really have drunk the purple Kool Aid, haven't you?
Dec 09 2009, 11:12 CET
you can't make something naturalistic super naturalistic just because you want a 'opposition' if you have ODD there is and will be help.
how cliche. you are so locked into the us vs them fight or flight mentality that capitalism i see.
Yes the issue of human rights... i find it sad you want to keep up the same reciprocal patterns. nobody wins unless we all win.
Dec 09 2009, 17:44 CET
I can't believe these negative comments about Zeitgeist. Sure there things wrong with that ideology, but it makes some interesting points as well, much better than the "serious scholarship" rhetoric that's prevalent in today's discourses.
Dec 09 2009, 19:23 CET
I dissagree, the misinformation is an effort to hijack anarchists and others from that and several other spheres into the libertarian/truther/Alex Jones sensationalist credibility black-hole.
Nothing Zeitgeist 1 ever said was worth the misinformation it spread. I refuse to even watch any more even to critique.
Dec 10 2009, 03:17 CET
Well if Anarchists are so easily misinformed then maybe we should have a Net Nanny Big Brother Control for Anarchists so they don't receive 'misinformation'.
Seriously though, I doubt Anarchists need a big brother to watch over them and filter what information they get.
If Anarchists are so easily persuaded by the rhetoric of the capitalist libertarians, main stream liberals, and other forms of bourgeois ideology then they aren't Anarchists to begin with.
Dec 10 2009, 18:55 CET
I dissagree, our ideology is no different from others and deviding the anarchist movement into "real-anarchists" and fake ones sounds like Hanity and other FOX people's "real-america" bullshit. I think your synopsis is unrealistic and shows you believe in a (false) natural superiority of your ideology. History shows quite to the contrary.
But anything that draws people into libertarianism leads directly to support of the supposed free-market assumptions of neo-liberal/conservative rhetoric. This is more what I fear, the ballooning of the ranks of what I could basically call my worst enemy.
Dec 11 2009, 21:41 CET
You are making too many assumptions about me, which is not surprising looking at some of your other comments.
My comment was actually in jest. Or can't you see the irony of acting like a big brother deciding what information should be allowed and what shouldn't, to Anarchists no less.
What you are arguing for is to censor certain types of information because to you it is 'misinformation'.
And by the way the Zeitgeist people are actually critical of the free market/private property, more so than many of the 'progressive' voices that are posted here, maybe that's why so much hate is aimed at them. That's not to say that their ideas don't have problems, which they certainly do.
Also don't be such a determinist, thinking that one thing leads directly to another, and implying that history has some kind of natural law that it follows.
On a last note libertarianism and anarchism were actually synonymous, and anti-capitalist ideas, at least outside of North America. It was only in the US that this term, like many others, became distorted. But that is to be expected from a political culture that considers liberalism to be a left-wing ideology.
Dec 12 2009, 17:38 CET
My 2 cents are that I also believe that calling people who are ignorant enough to be persuaded by Zeitgeist, etc. "not real anarchists" is basically handing over potential allies to the nutty movement.
I believe Zeitgest steers people in the wrong direction. Not everyone who will come here will necessarily be an "anarchist" or even that educated. I think we should not include movies that are clearly bullshit and have been debunked (Zeitgeist offers fales conspiracy theory claims about Jesus being born on Dec.25+astrology, 9/11 bunk theories, etc.)
Just because we have to be careful about "editorial decisions" doesn't mean that we should lose common sense. Filter out what is widely known to be bullshit, after investigating the facts. This film is bullshit. Period. Its inclusion steers people in the wrong direction.
Dec 13 2009, 21:13 CET
What you know to be bullshit might be what others believe. And conversely what you believe might be considered bullshit to others. Case in point is mainstream media. If you ever had a discussion with someone of a different ideological persuasion you would know what I mean.
There aren't any hard 'facts' in these discussions. Even if people agree on the basic 'facts' their interpretations might be different and they would be led to a different conclusion because of their ideology. It all has to do with interpretation of information and different values.
Social issues and politics are not a hard science. This is actually my criticism of Zeitgeist, they believe that social issues can be solved through the scientific method, essentially arguing for a technocracy where decisions are 'self evident'.
Also on a last note if you plan on criticizing this presentation/movie at least watch it beforehand. I don't mean Zeitgeist 1. I mean the second part where they actually argue for their view of how a society should be run.
In case you believe that you don't need to watch/read something in order to criticize it, well then there is no point in having this discussion any further.
Dec 15 2009, 17:32 CET
Having watched the first part with all the irrelevant nonsense about the origins of Christianity, I can't blame anyone for being severely prejudiced against the 2nd, 7th or n-th part.
Sorry, we're not interested in the "vision of society" of a person that gives a shit whether Horus was the son of a virgin.
Dec 15 2009, 19:31 CET
Sorry, you're right, I haven't watched this particular video. I thought i was just a revision of the original.
Dec 16 2009, 18:11 CET
My point was you needn't watch this one because of how far off target the first one was..
Dec 16 2009, 18:16 CET
This discussion is becoming comical now. It's like people who criticize socialism or anarchism and then later admit they haven't read any of the works about it, and are completely clueless about the fundamentals of these ideas.
I don't have a problem with you being critics of one ideology or another but it helps if you know what they are talking about, if anything for your own benefit so the next time you have an argument about this you don't look like a fool.
For the record, as I've stated before, I am critical of the venus project/zeitgeist movement as well. But since I have actually watched it, my criticism has merit.
I can see why so many people think the 2nd one is the same as, or continuation of the 1st one. Since it is called 'addendum', obviously not the best choice of words.
As for the actual addendum movie. It's interesting that the filmmaker actually arrived at some conclusion; that capitalism, the profit motive, private property are impediments to achieving a better world without having read socialist or anarchist literature, or even being aware that these same ideas have been in existence for over 100 years.
Dec 18 2009, 21:46 CET
this is stupid bullshit and doesn't even warrant discussion.
fuck you quasi-fascist scumfucks. i will continue to publicly and physically stop you from spreading your bullshit. see you soon.
Jan 14 2010, 15:38 CET