They are driving me INSANE!

[Edx]

OMG, :mad::mad:

I have been arguing with truthers on the Zeitgeist Movement forum for months now, and in one thread which has gone on for 47 pages I have just about had it.

Currently they are all abuzz with CIT stupidity. Theres even a truther there saying CIT are a hoax and I gave them refutations by Jim Hoffman Arabesque 911: Truth but they literally dont care.

Just wanted to vent because as the two truthers Im currently talking to right now have to be some of the most annoying truthers you'll ever come accross.



For example, and its hard to pick as theres so many:

So the cab driver took a class. He learns about David Icke and the nature of conspiracy in the class. He is later found on a bridge where the plane supposedly clipped a pole.
The light poles were seen getting knocked down by the plane by at least 2 of CIT's own witness' and at least 20 other people. They didnt "supposedly" get clipped, unless you think Hurricane Katrina "supposedly" destroyed New Orleans. What about all the people that saw the plane approach from the South including a CIT witness they tried to interview? Why do you ask us to accept CIT's 13 witness' (that are confused and contradict in specific ways) and ignore hundreds of other witness'? Its not like CIT have anyone that says they saw the plane fly over, all of them in a position to see it say it hit the building. All other evidence is just a "red herring" according to Kubuguy, do you agree with that? Why do you think that special pleading is not a logical fallacy now?

Hurricane Katrina didn't destroy New Orleans. Humans created an illogical city. It is not the Hurricane's fault.



Yes that really was his refutation of my point.




1:13 - Notice that supposed engine rotor is outside of the building and is away from the entrance site, as indicated by the building in the background. Evidence has been moved. Did they document where the rotor was initially found?
Im sorry where did you expect the engine to be located?

I expect the engine to be near all the other debris... such as the wings and tail. I also expect to see more damage to the foundation. I expect to see a documentation of the debris found... so that the evidence is treated like a crime scene and forensics may be performed. The crime scenes of 911 were not preserved... this makes some sense because you want to save lives... but why are the "suited men" moving debris in the lawn when they could be pulling victims out of a burning building? Is it necessary to move the debris in the lawn?


I feel like Im going insane with these guys. I think Im just about going to have to call it quits since its driving me dotty.

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=155670&limit=10&limitstart=460

Here you go if you want to have a look at the ridiculous stuff Im dealing with.

I wrote a MASSIVE (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=155670&limit=10&limitstart=450#176245) post on CIT a page earlier and of course it all gets ignored.

If any one feels like joining the fray I would appreciate it but certainly dont expect it.

:D :D

[mythstifieD]

Ok, SERIOUSLY, The Z-Movement is just a buncha hippies with a new pseudo-spirituality and are gungho for the singularity to remold them into good human beings.

I got banned from the Forums :)

http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=976&func=view&catid=60&id=78940

Let them build their Penis Project, I'm sure they'll gain control of the entire earths resources any day now...

[Edx]

Actually there are some rational people there, but it seems is generally filled with some of the most irrational people I've ever seen.

I agree with some of the philosophy of TVP but think its concept of society is too idealistic.

But this is getting off topic. :)

Lurkers have told me that I have made a difference in countering CT woo, so I know it is worthwhile. Just at present the two truthers Im talking to are just too insane for me. If they can read all my posts and follow the links and still think truthers have some kind of point then theres no convincing them.

[oldhat]

Zeitgeist is a bunch of 4chan idiots with Ron Paul flags and Guy Fawkes masks. You're on your own.

Give up, you're not going to convince them of anything.

[Edx]

Give up, you're not going to convince them of anything.

Actually I have several times! So I know its possible. :) I have received numerous PM's as well saying Im going a good job and how they never thought about it like that before.

This is the ZG movement forum remember, not everyone is a rabid truther there.

[dudalb]

Zeitgeist is a bunch of 4chan idiots with Ron Paul flags and Guy Fawkes masks. You're on your own.

Give up, you're not going to convince them of anything.
The amazing thing is the Zeitgeist plan is the almost direct opposite of Paul's Libertarian Lassiez Faire Capitalist philosophy, but that does not prevent the Zeitgiest gang as embracing him as a hero just because he is "ANti Establishment." Yeah, the Zeitgeist gang are not exactly the brightest bulbs on the planet.

[Edx]

that does not prevent the Zeitgiest gang as embracing him as a hero just because he is "ANti Establishment."

Only the stupid crazy ones do. In fact Peter Joseph while he doesnt think Paul is a woo (since Peter is full of CT woo) doesnt embrace Paul's ideas at all.

I hope this off topic stuff doesnt get the thread moved!

[TheBigKahuna]

OMG, :mad::mad:
I have been arguing with truthers on the Zeitgeist Movement forum for months now, and in one thread which has gone on for 47 pages I have just about had it.

Currently they are all abuzz with CIT stupidity. Theres even a truther there saying CIT are a hoax and I gave them refutations by Jim Hoffman Arabesque 911: Truth but they literally dont care.

Just wanted to vent because as the two truthers Im currently talking to right now have to be some of the most annoying truthers you'll ever come accross.

I feel like Im going insane with these guys. I think Im just about going to have to call it quits since its driving me dotty.
:D :D

Note: quoted text edited
Here's the trick, just ignore their stupidity and write your posts for the smart half, and have fun pointing out their logical fallacies. As you wrote that some people are being influenced, they're the ones you need to reach, even if it's just by showing them what clowns these two guys are.
:)

[mythstifieD]

Only the stupid crazy ones do. In fact Peter Joseph while he doesnt think Paul is a woo (since Peter is full of CT woo) doesnt embrace Paul's ideas at all.

I hope this off topic stuff doesnt get the thread moved!

I think it's on topic :P You're asking how to debate undebatable people..

..don't :)

[triforcharity]

My dad always told me; "Never argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience."

[Thunder]

arguing with paranoid nuts will never bring you peace.

[Havermayer]

I think the Zeitgeisters hearts are in the right place. They are just taking their conclusions waaaaaay too far. And we are dealing with people who are basing their lives off of some movie that saw on the internet.

I've noticed little meet-ups for local "Zeitgeist movement" things. I emailed the leaders and told them about a Dawkins appearance that's coming up on the 28th.

I wonder: could us rationalists co-op the Zeitgeisters?

[16.5]

Driving you crazy?

It is not drive, it is a putt.

/I love that joke!

[ktesibios]

Well I sit at my computer
type like mad and rack my brain
I got two obnoxious twoofers
that are drivin' me insane
It's a shame the way they blither and ignore
Oh I ain't gonna post on Maggie's board no more
Oh I ain't gonna post on Maggie's board no more.;)

[fourtoe]

Well I sit at my computer
type like mad and rack my brain
I got two obnoxious twoofers
that are drivin' me insane
It's a shame the way they blither and ignore
Oh I ain't gonna post on Maggie's board no more
Oh I ain't gonna post on Maggie's board no more.;)

I know this is most likely an older song but it still makes me want to listen to The Specials.


To the point: I went to the forum and I would love to help but I don't think I would be able to wade through 47 pages of crap.

The Zeitgueist movie seemed really cheesy to me, like it was really pseudo-intellectual or something.

[Lupie]

I hear the local C.C. in my area will be offering a new class-

"David Icke, and clipping a pole while ending up on a bridge-101"

The course is quite expensive, but they do give a discount for cab drivers.

Sounds facinating.

L.

[WildCat]

I know this is most likely an older song but it still makes me want to listen to The Specials.
It's based on Maggie's Farm by Bob Dylan.

[ktesibios]

It's based on Maggie's Farm by Bob Dylan.

Well, as a direct result of the thread title I have had Bob's voice playing in my head for the last half an hour.

Someone's gotta pay for that.:mad:

[JohnG]

Well, as a direct result of the thread title I have had Bob's voice playing in my head for the last half an hour.


How does it feel?

[TheDaver]

Zeitgeist is a bunch of 4chan idiots with Ron Paul flags and Guy Fawkes masks. You're on your own.

Give up, you're not going to convince them of anything.
Hey, there are some awesome people at 4chan too.

But if ZM manages to capture all the worst /b/tards, then wow, I really feel sorry for Edx.

But kudos to Peter Joseph for managing to capture and contain that sort of sheer volume and concentration of stupid. That’s really an accomplishment.

[Schwarzwald]

Trolling the zeitgeist movement can be so fun at times though.

Some of those people are just so into their whole tin foil hat thing.

[Edx]

But kudos to Peter Joseph for managing to capture and contain that sort of sheer volume and concentration of stupid. That’s really an accomplishment.

You know what I find really sad?

If you strip off all the woo baggage that comes with the name "Zeitgeist" and go watch the presentation he did in London, there may be a couple of minor parts that make you rolls your eyes but most of it is very interesting sensible stuff IMO, and its why I am still interested in what is going on there.

In fact Peter Joseph is a rather interesting character since unlike other 911 CT's, 911 was just one part of his first films "point" (that he made before he found The Venus Project). He has never gone on to be a "professional" conspiracy theorist like bascially all other examples I can think of right now. In fact with the ZGM the only thing he sells is T-Shirts and everytime someone suggests some kind of donations he tells them to stop and refuses to be apart of anything like that. On the ZGM website you see him advertising Addendum (not the first film) and provide links to download it but absoluetly no adverts or any link to a buy the film (unless they added that recently...).

There are a lot more sensible people in the "movement" than you might imagine, trust me. Someone has just posted on another thread:

Ed has every right to disagree fervently with the conspiracy theories, as does anyone with working brain cell.s

But as I said I agree with a lot of the sence of TVP but feel that its society it wants to create may well be far too idealistic, but I think theres wisdom to it that (may not be new) but can help people in how they think about the world. Of course thats why its so bizzare for me to see what I see as mostly rationality being attached to a name so irrational as "Zeitgeist". Any positive elements it has instantly get discredited and attacked in far more extreme ways that would ever happen if it now didnt have all that "baggage".

But anyway....

They found out I posted here as you can see from the thread :) And look another CIT fan has joined (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=155670&limit=10&limitstart=460#176435)! What joy!

Ed,

Please stop misrepresenting CIT and their efforts.

They are nothing like Judy Wood or the no planers.

They present real eyewitness evidence as to what happened at the Pentagon.

And stop insinuating there are "100's" versus their "13".

CIT contacted a boatload of witnesses:
z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

How many witnesses have you interviewed? How many that were at the Citgo?

None? That doesn't surprise me.

Ed, it is ok to admit you are wrong sometimes. You can't keep moving goal posts and making things up in order to make this not true.

I am very knowledgeable on this subject, so instead of me responding to your replies to others.

Why don't you lay out your case against CIT for me and I will kindly show you how you are wrong and severely misinformed.

[grandthefttoaster]

One thing that I noticed with Zeitgeist is that the movies are sold at a cheap price and are available for free anyways. However, on the website for Jacque Fresco's Venus Project, they sell other DVD's and book's, and ask for donations. The site says that the Zeitgeist Movement is the activist arm of the Venus Project, and most people heard about Fresco through Zeitgeist, so I think it would be reasonable if Peter Joseph gets a cut of that cash.

[Edx]

One thing that I noticed with Zeitgeist is that the movies are sold at a cheap price and are available for free anyways. However, on the website for Jacque Fresco's Venus Project, they sell other DVD's and book's, and ask for donations. The site says that the Zeitgeist Movement is the activist arm of the Venus Project, and most people heard about Fresco through Zeitgeist, so I think it would be reasonable if Peter Joseph gets a cut of that cash.

Yes Jacque and Roxanne do sell stuff on their website and they say still get tons of hate mail for it.

But even so I hear the Venus Project is going broke but they refuse to have a donation system setup (unlike the money grabbers at Infowars or AE911Truth), the only way they can make money outside TVP is through selling some of their stuff.

I understand how putting your movie on the net is a great marketing stratagy, however if you compare it to how other people do that (like Loose Change or Alex Jones or Richard Gage) IF that is Peters plan he either is waiting patiently with some master plan to get tons of money or he is very, very bad at it.

[grandthefttoaster]

Yes Jacque and Roxanne do sell stuff on their website and they say still get tons of hate mail for it.

But even so I hear the Venus Project is going broke but they refuse to have a donation system setup (unlike the money grabbers at Infowars or AE911Truth), the only way they can make money outside TVP is through selling some of their stuff.

I understand how putting your movie on the net is a great marketing stratagy, however if you compare it to how other people do that (like Loose Change or Alex Jones or Richard Gage) IF that is Peters plan he either is waiting patiently with some master plan to get tons of money or he is very, very bad at it.

Well regardless of what amount of money he is making, Peter Joseph to me seems to be a very dishonest filmmaker, based on how he distorts things and lies, and also he seems to be very self-righteous. Even though he might not be as interested in making money as Alex Jones, their priorities are the same: "get people to watch my movie and then spread the word". I don't have a lot of respect for a "movement" that thinks they are actually helping change the world just by preaching a bunch of stupid theories that are wrong anyway.

[Edx]

Well regardless of what amount of money he is making, Peter Joseph to me seems to be a very dishonest filmmaker, based on how he distorts things and lies,

I would agree except that from what I've seen I think there is a good chance that his was merely intentionally ignorent. Its all very confusing. Maybe some bizzare cognitive dissonance is going on, because it doesnt make sence to me from all I have seen from him just to write him off as just another liar for CT's.

and also he seems to be very self-righteous.

What I dont understand about Peter is how someone can talk the talk of a rational skeptic (and he really does) and yet be so completely unable apply it to himself when it comes to certain subjects. Case in point, he said he reedited Part 2 of ZG1 three times to keep only whats was evidenced. Clearly this means reading tons of conspiracy books rather than checking to see if theres any criticisms of the claims since he left the "alive" hijackers in and the "no hijackers on flight manifests" there. Two of some of the easiest claims to see are wrong just by a simple google search. Its not like he made this film back in 2002 or something, there was lots of material around at that point. So it makes you wonder what he chopped out!

Even though he might not be as interested in making money as Alex Jones, their priorities are the same: "get people to watch my movie and then spread the word". I don't have a lot of respect for a "movement" that thinks they are actually helping change the world just by preaching a bunch of stupid theories that are wrong anyway.

Well in terms of ZG1 the "movement" doesnt preach them at all. They dont even promote ZG1 on the ZGM website. Peter barely mentions the topics in ZG1 and his lecture now contains barely a flutter of anything you heard in ZG1. It still promotes the stuff far more than I like of course, which is why Im so damn pissed about all the nonsence that you refer to tarnishing what I see as stuff that has nothing to do with it, doesnt rely on it and makes quite a lot of sence to me.

[grandthefttoaster]

What I dont understand about Peter is how someone can talk the talk of a rational skeptic (and he really does) and yet be so completely unable apply it to himself.

Well he does use scientific sounding claims a lot, but to me he sounds like he just wants to sound smart. I noticed once that on the Zeitgeist message board, someone once brought up the conspiracyscience.com site that refutes everything in Zeitgeist. Instead of even debating a single fact, Peter simply declared that the person who wrote the site must have a vendetta against him. How is this scientific? This is the person who claims "to be proven wrong should be celebrated"? I guess that's how he avoids be proven wrong, just ignore it, otherwise he would have to celebrate his butt off.


Case in point, he said he reedited Part 2 of ZG1 three times to keep only whats was evidenced. Clearly this means reading tons of conspiracy books rather than checking to see if theres any criticisms of the claims since he left the "alive" hijackers in and the "no hijackers on flight manifests" there. You gotta wonder what he chopped out!


Well I think one of the things he changed was to correctly state that the video he claimed was the 2005 London bombing was actually the Madrid bombing. On the Zeitgeist Wikipedia article, you can read how he was critcized for getting this wrong. So I think he only fixed the things that were obvious.


Well in terms of ZG1 the "movement" doesnt preach them at all. They dont even promote ZG1 on the ZGM website. Peter barely mentions the topics in ZG1 and his lecture now contains barely a flutter of anything you heard in ZG1. It still promotes the stuff far more than I like of course, which is why Im so damn pissed about all the nonsence that you refer to tarnishing what I see as stuff that has nothing to do with it, doesnt rely on it and makes quite a lot of sence to me.

They don't seem to promote 9/11 theories and stuff like the "Amero" anymore but they still are all about preaching nonsense to people. Obviously it is just my opinion that the Venus Project stuff is a bad idea, however, they are using a lot of really wrong information to try to prove to people why it is necessary. For one, a big thing seems to be the idea that all wars are created by money, that money causes all problems and that things like crime would end without money. Also, the idea that the Fedral Reserve creates money out of debt and somehow this makes us slaves is important to them.

[Edx]

Well he does use scientific sounding claims a lot, but to me he sounds like he just wants to sound smart.

Thats not what I'm thinking of, its the way he talks about skepticism. Its all correct, my issue is that he doesnt apply any of it. The way he behaves however is unlike any CT I've ever heard before.

I noticed once that on the Zeitgeist message board, someone once brought up the conspiracyscience.com site that refutes everything in Zeitgeist. Instead of even debating a single fact, Peter simply declared that the person who wrote the site must have a vendetta against him. How is this scientific?

Well... 1 He seems to only acknowledge the religious debunkers and CS deals with Part 1. And 2 the writer of CS does make out he is making tons of money off of it so I can see how he might get that impression. But obviously its intellectually dishonest to hand wave the entire website on that basis I agree. He brought up nano thermite and the dust crap Jones is pushing (etc) in a written Q+A and I challenged him on it, didnt get a reply obviously.

This is the person who claims "to be proven wrong should be celebrated"? I guess that's how he avoids be proven wrong, just ignore it, otherwise he would have to celebrate his butt off.

That is in part what doesnt make sence to me,since he has gone into that in far more detail in some of his radio shows. I see it like this right now. Peter doesnt want to admit he is wrong about the stuff in ZG1 so covers his eyes so he doesnt have to and invents reasons why he can dismiss it all. Now this kind of intellectual dishonesty is different in my opinion to someone like Richard Gage or David Ray Griffin which are shown stuff ignore it then state it again when they know it isnt true, are shown its wrong, then they repeat it again. Its hard to describe unless you've read and listened to enough of Peters stuff as I have.

Well I think one of the things he changed was to correctly state that the video he claimed was the 2005 London bombing was actually the Madrid bombing. On the Zeitgeist Wikipedia article, you can read how he was critcized for getting this wrong. So I think he only fixed the things that were obvious.

hehe. yea... He claimed he knew it was that all along and was using it for artistic purposes or something, the same way he used the Kennedy speech where he was actually talking about communism.

They don't seem to promote 9/11 theories and stuff like the "Amero" anymore but they still are all about preaching nonsense to people.

There is some woo obviously, and some of the stuff about TVP is a bit iffy or a bit idealistic. However like I said a lot of it is decent I believe. Take a look at the London presentation and see what he is now all about. It is nothing to do with conspiracies or thermite or other such things. Everytime he moves further and further away from promoting woo.

For one, a big thing seems to be the idea that all wars are created by money, that money causes all problems and that things like crime would end without money.

Well actually thats not exactly what they say. Its not that money is the root of all evil, as it were. It is that money is a symptom of a larger problem. I agree if they stated it like that, it would be rather foolish.

Also, the idea that the Fedral Reserve creates money out of debt and somehow this makes us slaves is important to them.

The way Peter can put that can sound silly, it has gotten less and less stupid every time he has said it however. From when he said it in ZG1, to Addendum, to the Orientation Guide, to the radio address to his London presentation. Since I feel in a way, debt is a kind of slavery (though maybe using that word is an insult to real slaves)

[grandthefttoaster]

Thats not what I'm thinking of, its the way he talks about skepticism. Its all correct, my issue is that he doesnt apply any of it. The way he behaves however is unlike any CT I've ever heard before.


Well... 1 He seems to only acknowledge the religious debunkers and CS deals with Part 1. And 2 the writer of CS does make out he is making tons of money off of it so I can see how he might get that impression. But obviously its intellectually dishonest to hand wave the entire website on that basis I agree. He brought up nano thermite and the dust crap Jones is pushing (etc) in a written Q+A and I challenged him on it, didnt get a reply obviously.


The conspiricyscience guy is an atheist, and Skeptic Magazine has also debunked part 1 in a non-religious manner. I think this is important because many Zeitgeist fans seem to think that the only religious people disagree with part 1.

I don't think that pointing out that he makes some money shows someone has a vendetta against him. If it isn't true, he could just describe where the money goes. Interestingly, the biggest problem Zeitgeist followers seem to have with the CS site is the page that shows how PJ might be making money. I think this is sort of a thing with conspiracy theorists, the first thing they look for is stuff like that so they can say "no, it's wrong" without looking at the actual facts debunking the movie.

I actually saw your post that came after his Q&A when I was checking out their message boards, it was refreshing to see a voice of reason and depressing to see how they responded to you.


hehe. yea... He claimed he knew it was that all along and was using it for artistic purposes or something, the same way he used the Kennedy speech where he was actually talking about communism.


Well if he used the wrong footage on purpose, and then added a correction after someone critcized him, that sounds really dishonest. I don't know why he didn't just say it was a honest mistake or something.



There is some woo obviously, and some of the stuff about TVP is a bit iffy or a bit idealistic. However like I said a lot of it is decent I believe. Take a look at the London presentation and see what he is now all about. It is nothing to do with conspiracies or thermite or other such things. Everytime he moves further and further away from promoting woo.


I have only seen the two movies and a few other things, so maybe I will check it out, but it is kind of boring to listen to PJ. He really seems to talk a lot and say nothing at the same time. Like the long winded speeches about "the symbiotic emergent nature of reality".


Well actually thats not exactly what they say. Its not that money is the root of all evil, as it were. It is that money is a symptom of a larger problem. I agree if they stated it like that, it would be rather foolish.


Well they did pretty much say that all crime would be eliminated in their ideal world, as well as the entire legal system. No one even disagrees in the future?


The way Peter can put that can sound silly, it has gotten less and less stupid every time he has said it however. From when he said it in ZG1, to Addendum, to the Orientation Guide, to the radio address to his London presentation. Since I feel in a way, debt is a kind of slavery (though maybe using that word is an insult to real slaves)

In the first part of Z-2 he claimed that there was some problem with the federal reserve system and by using money, people were really in debt and were slaves. The problem is is that people have to work in order to have a functioning society, regardless if they are in debt. I get their point that they want to eliminate work, but the reason people have to work is because the work-eliminating robots don't exist, not because banks put people in debt and force them to work.

[Edx]

The conspiricyscience guy is an atheist, and Skeptic Magazine has also debunked part 1 in a non-religious manner. I think this is important because many Zeitgeist fans seem to think that the only religious people disagree with part 1.

Definitely! Im saying that he can pretend that is the case to avoid dealing with any of it. Granted that while most specific attacks against Zeitgeist comes from apologists you have to be quite blind to ignore every other debunking.

I don't think that pointing out that he makes some money shows someone has a vendetta against him. If it isn't true, he could just describe where the money goes. Interestingly, the biggest problem Zeitgeist followers seem to have with the CS site is the page that shows how PJ might be making money. I think this is sort of a thing with conspiracy theorists, the first thing they look for is stuff like that so they can say "no, it's wrong" without looking at the actual facts debunking the movie.

Well yea I mean one guy cheery picked the part where CS says that the 911 Commission report did in fact mention WTC7 (contrary to what DRG says). ... then another truther debunks the claim... but still try to make out CS was being dishonest for no reason.... eH?? :confused:

I actually saw your post that came after his Q&A when I was checking out their message boards, it was refreshing to see a voice of reason and depressing to see how they responded to you.

Yea... but bare in mind it is not your typical "woo" forum since its not exclusively of truthers or CT's because it doesnt necessitate a belief in the real woo stuff Peter has put out in the past. Theres quite a number that put a voice of reason into these discussions. But overall the loudest voices still seem to be as I said mostly irrational people which I totally agree is depressing to see.

Well if he used the wrong footage on purpose, and then added a correction after someone critcized him, that sounds really dishonest. I don't know why he didn't just say it was a honest mistake or something.

Well he seems to think its okay because he never said it was from the 7/7 attacks, but obviously if you dont know any better how are you supposed to know? Which is why I have such a problem with ZG1 especially, but he got much beter since then. Maybe he was influenced by all that CT stuff so much (since it was essentially just rehashing previous CT videos) and realises he was wrong to go about ZG1 the way he did, however doesnt want to admit he is wrong about some stuff to avoid alienating his audience. This is another problem I see with its since while I see the logic, its still intellectually dishonest.

I have only seen the two movies and a few other things, so maybe I will check it out, but it is kind of boring to listen to PJ. He really seems to talk a lot and say nothing at the same time. Like the long winded speeches about "the symbiotic emergent nature of reality".

hehe. yes its true with the films, but the London presentation (which is what I reccomend) is a lot better. Not saying its perfect just that its not based on stupid this time.

Well they did pretty much say that all crime would be eliminated in their ideal world, as well as the entire legal system. No one even disagees in the future?

Thats true they do say that, but that is not because of the elimination of money. If you stopped using money alone that would not make any difference and society could not function. That is why I say you misunderstand if you think they mean that money is the root of all the worlds problems, money as I said is merely a symptom.

Though small addendum to the above is also that they wouldnt class something as a "crime" in their hypothetical society since a "crime" is merely something a politician has created a law for prohibiting a certain action. Since there would be no politicians and therefore no laws, there could be no criminals. Before that suddenly makes no sence to you, it might start to make a little bit more sence once to consider their ideas on human behaviour. However my issue with their concept of this society is getting there. I understand the theory but feel that may well be impossible.

In the first part of Z-2 he claimed that there was some problem with the federal reserve system and by using money, people were really in debt and were slaves. The problem is is that people have to work in order to have a functioning society, regardless if they are in debt. I get their point that they want to eliminate work, but the reason people have to work is because the work-eliminating robots don't exist, not because banks put people in debt and force them to work.

Thats right and like I said the way he puts the same point has evolved over time.

I've always said he didnt need to use Acharya S in order to show that the Bible has evidently been recycled from previous myths and legends. You dont need to resort to conspiracy theories to prove the world is a *bleep*ed up place and that governments lie and do bad things.

In regards to this point, you dont need to say the Rothchilds and the Morgans are rubbing their hands with glee in a nararious plot in order to have you enslaved. Because its clear that in the current system the way banks make their money is by getting people into debt. Its the nature of their business to be happy if you can only pay off the minimum on your credit cards each month, if you do that you'll never pay off the card. In fact they love it when they charge you overdraft fees to make you go even more into debt. How do we know that? Because they say that thats the only reason that they can offer free banking. Banks arent doing you a favour, their business is getting you in debt in the same way McDonalds' business is getting you to buy their food. But understanding this need not necessitate belief in some grand conspiracy its just how the institutions have evolved. This is simple economic observations and doesnt rely on vast narious banking conspiracies with a small group of banking elite holding secret meetings and controlling governments. Peters presentation of this point has swung away well away from presenting it as such, thankfully. (though every now and then seems to drop a few cherries for the NWO fans)

[grandthefttoaster]

I think a problem is that this "movement" is named after a conspiracy theory movie which is very popular, so most of the people who join this group are going to be believers in the original movie. If you agree with a few of the ideas they promote, than I guess my advice would be to find a way to have similar ideas without promoting their videos or movement. Keep in mind that almost everything in Zeitgeist is taken from other people. From what I understand, the Venus Project stuff is similar to the Technocratic Movement, which has been around since the 1930's. Also, check out Buckminster Fuller, I heard he had some similar ideas.

Also, I wanted to mention the guy who created conspiracyscience.com has a facebook group where people can talk about this and other conspiracy movies. It is sort of empty, as not many people have joined yet, but today I argued with someone who thinks Bertrand Russell is part of the NWO... or something. It is worth checking out.

[Havermayer]

Here's the skeptic mag article:

"The Greatest story ever garbeled"

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25#feature

[mythstifieD]

He buries the first video which is the only reason he got famous in the first place.... All the CT's went viral on it because of his swanky presentation of the Official 9/11 story, and then he betrayed them all by dropping the issue nearly completely.