CS...I dismissed the site pretty quickly after the whole "Lean how much money PJ makes out of Zeitgeist!"-crap, although the critical points on Z1 have their value.


I liked your lecture on social pathology (especially the reference to Wilkinson) and it seems to be a dominating habit of our time not to be able to separate critique and emotional attachment.

Most "splinter groups" are filled with anger against you or TVP (or the moderators), although the points of interest should be the content that we (or they) disagree on, not the emotional value some banned user projected (and projects) into it.
Simpler - the core ideal that I see in TZM is to talk about logical flaws in our current society and a feasible alternative´ and debating CONTENT, disagreeing with someone on A, but seeing that they are right on B, instead of falling into quick associations like "PJ didn't like my city blueprint, so his movement sucks" and progressing on a path that finally leads to separation.

Every splinter group could work together and just say "Well, we don't agree with your view on x, or we set different priorities, but let's just take 20 minutes and think about where we could collaborate".

As long as people are used to getting consumed by bitterness and anger if they don't get what they want out of a group experience, instead of having the emotional stability to move on and - as dumb as this may sound - "forgive", as long as this behavior prevails...there's only that much we can do.

That's one of the reasons I'm still writing here, and have much respect for any member of TZM, although I think critical of some things that TZM proposes.

Some of us might march under different flags - but as long as we walk towards a similar goal and just differ on certain points - there's no need for shooting, if you want to stay with the example.


A long post for a simple point - we have to grow up and let our differences and arguments continue on a logical level, not on a emotional, at least (!) inside this movement and of course, every splinter group that could help in the future. Guerilla networking, not guerilla war.

There is much that could be gained by constructive (and sometimes destructive) feedback and collaboration paired with peaceful disagreement on certain items - and much that could be lost by throwing dirt, because we ignore our similarities and focus on our differences.


I'm not addressing anyone specific, this might be an inspiration for all the anticultists as well as for TZM-members, and, of course, myself. I've got more than enough to do dealing with my own demons, I don't need to create new ones by vicious attacks or premature judgments, and I don't think anybody else needs to do this either (unless you're Alex Jones).

Let's progress from the age of competition into the age of collaboration, the former one is of less and less use with the progressing flow of information and complexity of our environment.


Cheers,
CJ

link for the zeitgeist facebook page?

www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=17874&a...amp;uid=55303891744#!/group.php?gid=55303891744

though I have a feeling that isn't what you where refering to.

I went ahead and read the entire article.

Mixed in with a valid point here, and a valid point there, are a series of obvious tonal aspersions that, to put it simply, don't usually even fully relate to the subject matter they're attempting to debunk.

And OMG! What is the guy's problem with a freakin' $5 DVD?!!!! That's a bargain on any street corner. I guess he's saying Mr. Joseph has claimed not to be making any money at all off the movies, which he has not claimed to my knowledge.

I didn't even need to read the article to know Mr. Joseph took an artistic liberty here and there in the movies. When one is trying to put across a large idea, it's important to understand and address people according to the way they think and with respect to human responses.

Small things like Peter referring to "God's Sun" as a staging device for "God's Son" are completely irrelevant to the information content. But Mr. Winston makes a 2-paragraph rebuttal out of it that rebuts absolutely nothing.

He frequently throws the word "oversimplified" into the mix when talking about Mr. Joseph's discussion of the ancient religions. How is that important? Of course it's oversimplified. Maybe he was expecting a full-scale documentary on ancient Egyptian culture? That's not what the movie is about.

The section on 9/11 is full of broad, sweeping statements that, in my opinion, are simply much less credible than Mr. Joseph's take on the event, and frequently demonstrate the limits of Mr. Winston's intellect.

Example: "I just have to wonder why someone who was committing suicide the next day would need $100,000." Seriously? You can't understand why someone who was about to supposedly embark on the most massive terrorist operation in history might need money? 19 airline tickets is one expense that comes to mind right off the top of my head. And I mean, that's aside from the fact that what Mr. Joseph is saying encompasses the possibility he was not intending to commit suicide the next day at all.

Mr. Winston seems to be of the opinion that if it is difficult for him to find information about something, it isn't true. As a matter of fact, he obviously considers his own failure to uncover facts a thorough debunking of the information presented.

By the time I finished his comments on the London bombings, I realized I was into the irrational rantings of someone who had made up his mind long before he put pen to paper that he was not going to listen to any of Mr. Joseph's logic, no matter how logical it might be. He actually adds credibility to the London conspiracy theory by stating there was a 40-minute discrepancy between the time the bombs went off and the time the exercise began.

Meaning that the people who would deal with the actual bombing situation would be quite busy preparing for their exercise 40 minutes prior, therefore rendered even more ineffective by the conspirators than if they were actually at the site at the time of the event.

Aside from that, a mere 40-minute discrepancy stated as evidence of no conspiracy? Laughable.

It's interesting that he veeerrry carefully edges his way into attempting to debunk Part III by addressing a few quotes first. One can almost sense his trepidation as he sets out on his doomed course to engage a topic about which he obviously knows almost nothing.

Frankly, by the time I got through all his "probably's," "imagine's," "supposedly's," and "imply's," I felt I was reading the work of a zealous simpleton. I even found one outright lie, when Mr. Winston accuses Mr. Joseph of calling the Founding Fathers "ruthless banking interests." It's obvious that Peter was not in any way referring to the Founding Fathers, but to those who had set up central banks before the Federal Reserve. Talk about trying to appeal to the reader's emotional hot-buttons!

The factual errors in the text thereafter are too many to even duly consider. He kinda lost me at that stage, though I did make myself continue reading so I could at least say I read it all. Let it be enough said that all I can really give Mr. Winston credit for is occasionally admitting he doesn't know something. Unfortunately, he always says it in that sideways nudge-nudge-wink-wink manner implying that since he doesn't know it, it can't be true.

His altogether juvenile take on government and media deception is so naive I almost feel sorry for him - writing off the extent of media misrepresentation as "making big deals about who the President is sleeping with to keep people from criticizing Congress" is simply...I dunno, cute?

As for whether this Edward Winston is mentally ill, I surely wouldn't be the one who could say whether that's the case.

But I will say this much - the only thing he debunked in this article is his own intentions, which are to glorify himself by tearing down his much more knowledgeable contemporaries.

You should be flattered, though, Peter, that he at least gave us the courtesy of our own Zeitgeist tab at the top of his home page.

peterjoseph wrote:
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.

Yup,the same feeling here - some personal issues shouldn't block the future. Also agree on mildly different direction (especially on the field of involvement in current legal / monetary system). Not to mention that the name itself probably shall be changed to avoid the conflict with the VP.

Regarding the cooperation, in theory of organization the situation can be describe with the picture:


Simply put:
Problem: organizations (groups) have a lot in common with some things which differs ( basically the reasons why they are not the same).
Solutions:
a) one of the group either:
- expand to approve and include other ideas (with "others" approval of course)
- or shrinks (resign from ideas) to become part of another
b) third, larger group is to be created, which represents all parties and all parties agree on that representation (becoming somehow the "branches" specialized in specific field but within the larger organization. In other words the organizational efficiency is achieved by splitting the "common" areas between organizations ( to avoid doubling work ), while focusing on the "unique" specialization. The overall direction is secured by being the part of the larger platform.

Sorry for kinda long post , but this is the theory

And OMG! What is the guy's problem with a freakin' $5 DVD?!!!! That's a bargain on any street corner. I guess he's saying Mr. Joseph has claimed not to be making any money at all off the movies, which he has not claimed to my knowledge.

Such things are invented to make a psychological profile that I am "dishonest" or "lying" to people.

The section on 9/11 is full of broad, sweeping statements that, in my opinion, are simply much less credible than Mr. Joseph's take on the event, and frequently demonstrate the limits of Mr. Winston's intellect.

Its just cut and pasted from other sites, actually.

As for whether this Edward Winston is mentally ill, I surely wouldn't be the one who could say whether that's the case.

My use of the term is like referring to a hard core racist. Hate is a form of mental illness, where thought is molded around a set of negative, presupposed conclusions about certain groups or people. For instance, since the release of the article, it's like a beehive that has been wacked over on their forum, where the people there have gone full force with as much hate speech as they can come up with, including Edward who has, like a racist pushed in a corner with logic and reason, now has no recourse but to call me every name he can find. Suddenly there is a banner up in the Zeitgist section that tries to draw attention to this article and twists the argument, as would be expected, that I am simply calling Edward "Crazy", with the strawman that is has something to do with the infomration itself on his website, or people not "agreeing with me". I couldn't care less if people agree with me or not. This has nothing to do with that- it is just another escapism...likely a pathological one.

In the end, it is really disheartening how nothing it given critical intellectual review. I'm going to leave it at this. I'm not here in the interest to "change" anyone and my focus is not on CS as an institution - it is about the sickness in the society where people would rather immediately seek reasons hate you, without even really knowing you, than find common ground.