katastron wrote:
Lux wrote:
Science is based very much on Peer Review, which means that you A) need to get published by an established journal or in a universityUnfortunately this approach contains inherent corruption, similar to the monetary system's assumption for investment: "those who acquire more money are more suited to invest money properly for the betterment of humanity", which seems in reality to not be valid. The corruption in this case is about the methods of thinking, not about material and social power.

Possibly, but that is where most of the accusations of unsubstantiated claims are popping up from.

Since when is RBEF a separate movement?

Anyway, I would like to say I agree and have witnessed all this ideological bigotry first hand multiple times. Sadly, like you have stated before in your interview, it will take biosocial pressures to cause a social change. What we can do now is 'ween' the public into becoming familiar with the word Zeitgeist and The Venus Project. As long as they have seen the name, regardless of knowing our views, it will cause the person to give more attention down the line when the word arises again. It most definitely will when the majority realizes money isn't working.

Whenever this collapse hits, it will make the name spread drastically, and we need to make sure people are familiar with the words Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project so they'll take interest. To break attention spans that are ever shrinking by today's mindless bullshit corporate advertising, familiarity is what is needed to get people to spend time listening to us. It's more of brand advertising really...no matter how reluctant I want to call it that. But repetition does help the brain pay attention to certain things over others.

As for attacking the messenger, it is extremely easy to do over the internet. Online games made me vastly aware of this. Shit-talking is basically a norm (and sometime fun if just joking around), but yes, most go too far and are serious about what they spew out. If people over at Conspiracyscience were to talk to you directly in person, they would pay more attention because of the human reaction, instead of having the ability to click away and do whatever. What you did with Alex Jones is a prime example, however he still had the ability to drown you out, which was bullshit, but the physical talking back and forth was beneficial rather than typing. My point is, it's much easier to attack the messenger typing on the internet than in a face to face conversation where societal norms and manners take place.

The Red Herring Angle is just another term scapegoating right?

Most of these things will hopefully change with a environmental change, and I just hope the majority will be able to mentally cope the change and not do something terrible.

katastron wrote:
Lux wrote:
Science is based very much on Peer Review, which means that you A) need to get published by an established journal or in a universityUnfortunately this approach contains inherent corruption, similar to the monetary system's assumption for investment: "those who acquire more money are more suited to invest money properly for the betterment of humanity", which seems in reality to not be valid. The corruption in this case is about the methods of thinking, not about material and social power.

Possibly, but that is where most of the accusations of unsubstantiated claims are popping up from.

Says who?
As the founder of the movement, I am ALWAYS getting feedback and the accusations most common against our ideas are 90% based on nonsense, without any technically detailed critique. They simply do not address specifics.

Those that do pose critical questions which have done their initial homework on what we actually represent, tend to complain not about the foundation of the model we propose, but how to get there. The question of Transition is the most asked question and problem for most people. And a viable one. I am going to produce a "Transition lecture" in the near future.

Peter, what is your opinion on this similiar issue I've posted on this thread: www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/inde...id=231&id=251614

Since when is RBEF a separate movement?


I wouldn't say they are a separate movement but, sadly, there have been some disputes between certain members of theirs and the Venus Project. These are still unresolved. The issue is focus and the RBEF, which i feel are very dedicated to truly wanting to help, have pushed a mildly different direction... and tensions emerged in regard to money and other issues. This isn't a subject to be address here. I hope to find a balance and resolution to the issue in the future. I don't want division. We need to stay together... but we also need to make sure the direction is direct and not diffused/confused.

peterjoseph wrote:
[quote]katastron wrote:
Lux wrote:

Those that do pose critical questions which have done their initial homework on what we actually represent, tend to complain not about the foundation of the model we propose, but how to get there. The question of Transition is the most asked question and problem for most people. And a viable one. I am going to produce a "Transition lecture" in the near future.

THANK YOU!!! Virtually EVERYONE I talk to completely agrees that we need to move to a RBE, but they always say "That would be such a hard transition..." and "There is no way to get there from here", and thus dismiss the validity of a RBE. The only thing I can come up with is "Yes, it will be a very difficult transition, but it is either evolve or die, move to a more sustainable way of governing ourselves on this planet or further our collapse into a military dictatorship. We have no choice. We HAVE to at least TRY!"

The question of Transition is indeed the most problematic.

Peter, what is your opinion on this similiar issue I've posted on this thread: www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/inde...id=231&id=251614

I have heard. Facebook isn't that important to me.. I didn't start it and I don't pay much attention. But you are correct and I have been meaning to talk to the individuals in control of it. We might have to take control of it, in fact... thanks

Thank you for taking this issue into account. And never forget Peter that what ever those guys at CS say about you, you'll always have the respect and the support of 400 000 people from this community.

Yeah might be a good idea because most of the people who get introduced to the movement by facebook aren't aware that it wasn't started by you/isn't officially recognized by the movement. It can also be a powerful tool if utilized correctly, and could be used to turn new members away from us if not. I don't really know what can be done though because anyone that the mod's delete just make a soc puppet account and then scream of injustice. It might just take making someone a mod who is on the zeitgeist facebook page a lot who's willing to take the time to constantly ban the bastards until they get tired of making new account. *sigh*

Yeah might be a good idea because most of the people who get introduced to the movement by facebook aren't aware that it wasn't started by you/isn't officially recognized by the movement. It can also be a powerful tool if utilized correctly, and could be used to turn new members away from us if not. I don't really know what can be done though because anyone that the mod's delete just make a soc puppet account and then scream of injustice. It might just take making someone a mod who is on the zeitgeist facebook page a lot who's willing to take the time to constantly ban the bastards until they get tired of making new account. *sigh*

can you post a link, it isn't coming up for me....thx