Skeptic Project

Answer: NO

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=312863

One says eight doctors in peter's new film some how correlates in support. Then of course you see the typical answer in deflecting the answer. another being mentioning mr.moonica Douglas Mallete and somehow since he has credential it makes the venus project have credibility in some weird Zeitgeist logic.

Then you got the admin asking if the guy has self-confidence problem again going along the lines that he's mental ill and again deflecting from what the person asked which is "Do any experts support The Venus Project?". Then saying that experts in their given field doesn't matter because TVP is perfect and somehow the thread starter is suppose to trust some anonymous (probably Peter Joseph Merola) dude for such an answer.

Then more rational logic from the anonymous admin that the thread start is suppose to listen to in that "Historically, all "experts" are eventually proven wrong." Without giving any evidence at all. Ironically this Admin guy is inadvertently calling himself a expert but not giving anybody enough to prove him right or wrong when he makes such claims.

@Beauty Killer well from my understanding Peter interview people that are experts in their given field, it doesn't mean they support anything. Plus the movies are not the movement right?

@Beauty Killer what's Peter's Policy layout for the transition? Also I know this is obvious but this emphasizes again that Peter Joseph Merola is in fact the leader of the Zeitgeist movement and Venus project.

Saying markets are a problem and supporting RBE nonsense are completely different things. RBE, as a theory, is remarkably weak. I'm personally going to watch the film and see what comes of it, but there are serious academics and thinkers out there working on real solutions. TZM will remain relegated to the internet.

It's slightly over 2 hours lol.

I'm a film student. If I was making a film I would be pissed off if people gave away it's contents before I released it as well - especially if I'd spent $200K on it. That's how the producer - consumer relationship works in film. You are disrespecting that relationship if you do things against the consumers will. That's true at least, in our current world - which is why we have copyrights and so forth.

@Beauty Killer I wish you would apply the same ethics and morales as to when you gave us the collection of dots you call a graph and then try to pass it off as global Violence. I suppose it's not your fault it's your conditioning, your not sophisticated in such things as to explaining or showing data correctly.

The point still, in my mind, is that even if everyone agrees that market economics is not sustainable, how does that suddenly mean that this enormously elaborate utopia is any more plausible?

My response would be that it's far less elaborate than the economic philosophy we live under now in the same way that the Australian Greens philosophy is far less elaborate than that of the Australian Liberal party, to give you a political-world comparison.

I wish you would apply the same ethics and morales as to when you gave us the collection of dots you call a graph and then try to pass it off as global Violence.

I never claimed it had anything to do with violence. My claim was simple - American gun violence is very high, despite it not being the country in the West with the most guns. Period.

What do you mean market economics aren't sustainable? What do you think drives the search for renewable energy? Magic dust from the altruism fairy?

Are you joking? We've solved extreme poverty to a certain extent, but base poverty is getting worse and is going to lead us back into worse extreme poverty - I feel very much qualified to state that having worked for long periods of time with anti-poverty groups. Renewable energy? Are you serious? There's a search for it, sure, but it's certainly not being implemented anywhere near quickly enough. It's just not as cost-effective as using fossil fuels. Governments (especially in Australia) have said this time and time again. As well as the right on a global scale.

Well they've been unveiling electric cars for ages, haven't they? And not just GM, of course. But an electric car is pretty pointless when it's being charged by fossil fuels, and then even more pointless if it's made out of materials that when they're ready to be trashed and broken down kind of rid the car of any 'environmentally friendly' label - if we're to be fair. They're mostly token.

Well, mainly not quickly enough for those in extreme poverty. Especially those in extreme poverty -and- low lying areas that are easily affected by rising sea levels due to carbon emissions, that are caused as a result of (mainly) heavy industry's activities.

I don't think you understand Brenton. The reason there aren't all these great changes in fuel alternatives is because no one has been able to come up with any that are feasible on a large scale yet.

That isn't entirely true. As I said, there just isn't enough investment, which leads me to the second part of your post...

You want to smash up all these "evil corporations" that are allegedly making life unfair for some, but on the other hand you want new, alternative sources of energy. You can't have one without the other.

Well let's look at it from my perspective as a Greens member, in which case you're kind of wrong. We take in mind that there isn't enough investment, but the potential for renewable energy, yes. Do we smash corporations, or do we tax them to pay for this investment? My answer is tax as much as is needed. Why? Human survival should come before concerns of over-taxation. The corporations that should specifically taxed are those making heavy pollution possible. They ought to pay.

Okay, name one alternative non-fossil fuel that's feasible on a large scale.

I'm not a fan of nuclear energy, because like everyone I've got a bit of a stigma about it. But I can't deny how efficient and low-impact the modern forms are. You only asked for one, so I'll stop there.

I don't share your perspective. What are these evil corporations supposed to pay for? Offending your moral sensibilities?

Their emissions. If we have a carbon tax it should not be on the public, but industry.

This prediction?

Maybe its full of thought provoking idea's.................
probably not, my bet is its full of un-debunk-able fluff, by un-debunk-able I don not mean its full of Rock Solid evidence, but rather abstract ideas and opinions which cannot be fully refuted as they are not actual facts that peter could get wrong. Then Peter can claim we did not debunk his movie, therefore everything he ever says is correct.

i'm not sure if you read my previous predictions for the movie, but if you did, would you say they are accurate

Simple answer: no.

It's not about respecting them. These are basic ethics that you're told to accept in film school - and which people who use media are supposed to respect. I'm going to respect this particular one.

Muertos, your major is history - yeah?

Answer my question about your major, and then I'll answer those questions.

Right, I had begun to figure as such. That's why you're so butt-hurt about his first film - even though it has become virtually inconsequential.

I say this based on (and yes, I'll reference this again) the 60 minute interview I did with a left-leaning NYT bestselling journalist last week - who wasn't interested in discussing what you say is most significant about The Zeitgeist Movement which is it's "association" with conspiracy theories (specifically because of ZI).

She didn't bring up such a notion at all. We didn't start discussing that at all until I brought it up. And I will not be surprised if subsequent interviews go exactly the same. She was more interested in the social ideas the movement talks about (by far) which I'm going to predict right here is going to become the trend.

You can't stand that idea, though, because it would hurt you to see an organisation loosely associated with a film that presents an inaccurate view of various aspects of history - mainly because you're taught that accuracy as far as you can possibly be accurate is the basis of your integrity as a historian, no?

Do these sickbags have any respect for the 3,000 Americans whose grave Peter Merola pisses on every time his mind-corroding films gets downloaded on the Internet?

I can't say that's worth commenting on because as I said, the first film is dying as a significant aspect even slightly - no matter how much you continue to claim it is. I'm going to go to an effort in future to speak to journalists (instead of waiting for them to contact me) about the movement to see if I'm right on this, because I'm absolutely certain about it.

Do they have any respect for the thousands of kids all over the world who they've duped into believing their neo-utopian garbage, when these people could be out doing real good for real people instead of doing playtime fantasizing about a "Resource Based Economy"?

It's not fair to say they're all 'kids', although I can understand why you need to believe that because if adults advocate it then they're either idiots or need to be committed - right? The problem with your argument here is that you're becoming wrong about your central idea - that the conspiracy theories are the central aspect of the movement. Maybe that was true two years ago, but it is increasingly becoming untrue.

I mean this journalist basically said "I know that there's conspiracy theory in the first film, and factual inaccuracy - but I don't think this movement is made up of conspiracy theorists". And she said that based on the meetings / moving forward screening in NYC she went to.

I totally disagree - so much so that I'm not even going to bother getting into a circular argument with you - and I'm not going respond.

Please do not try and psycho-analyse me. It wont work.