Skeptic Project

@Brenton:

"Peter himself is clearly anti-fascist. I've been going through archived pages of zeitgeistmovie.com and cannot find any specific references to support for Ron Paul as of yet - which is something I should have checked up on."

Interesting.

From what I have seen of Peter Joseph's behavior he clearly exhibits some fascist tendencies.

The myth is adapted to ignore error, without actually conceding that errors were made.

Censorship of opposing viewpoints.

The inability to debate outside of environments he controls.

The extreme hostility towards organized religion, even going so far as to use outright lies to justify it.

That's what I see what I think of Peter Joseph.

Now, Peter Joseph is old enough to remember what Ron Paul used to be vocal about. Just because you aren't, it would be a real mistake to assume that Peter Joseph isn't. Now, I am not saying Peter Joseph is a white supremacist, but if he will support a politician who is just so he doesn't have to pay taxes and can smoke pot legally... well.... yeah. I find it extremely hard to believe that Peter Joseph was unaware of what Ron Paul stood for.

If you want to overlook that, feel free. But I can't. I'd love to not pay taxes and get blazed legally. But I sure wouldn't support an asshole like Ron Paul over it, ever. I wouldn't even think of it.

@Brenton:

Nice cherry picking, dude. I'll follow suit.

"Hostility?"

Yeah, I would consider creating a video based on absolute lies about a belief system many people have to be pretty hostile. Just because he had a pleasant tone while doing it doesn't change a damn thing.

"So then every single person who supports Sarah Palin wants to see bloodshed in Iran? Of course not, everyone votes in their own personal interest.
And on the issue of pot which is, oh excuse me, not even an issue."

This analogy sucks. Sarah Palin is a celebrity, not a politician that has been actively connected to the white power movement for decades.

I'm going to share a personal anecdote concerning an experience I had as I was sitting here contemplating this whole idea of a social utopia. Keep in mind this is a personal anecdote, nothing more.

I'm thinking long and hard about how we could really achieve the sort of things Brenton believes in. Maybe he has a point, I mean *I* would like those things too and..

Wait. What's that?

*Pop* *Pop* *Pop* *Pop* *Pop*

I get up, look outside. Nothing. I'm hearing shit. I sit back down.

Back to my thoughts about how much I would like universal love and hap...

*Pop* *Pop* *Pop* *Pop* *Pop*

Okay, I am totally not imagining this. I get up from my very important mental masturbation session to look outside again. One of the neighbors is standing outside with a BB gun deliberately aiming for my bird feeders. I had to go outside and ask him to stop, because evidently the idea that such behavior was unacceptable had not occurred to him. This wasn't a child. This was an adult.

So Brenton, I was just wondering. What sort of posts would one have to make on the Zeitgeist forums to force the sort of social change that would rid humanity of douchebaggery?

I consider a conspiracy theorist debating another conspiracy to be an environment he can control.

He is on friendly ground with that style of thinking. The puppet master mentality is already established as a fact. Totally different than if he were to debate with a skeptic. That is something I have never seen Peter Joseph do.

Well let's be realistic here wilbur22, either a representative is making your decisions for you (which doesn't seem to work, obviously) or technicians are. Of course I'm analyzing this from the perspective of technocracy/TVP, if you want to talk about people being sovereign to themselves, well that's more of an anarchist thing (both libertarian and socialist).

It's really the case of lesser of two evils, but one is vastly less evil because they understand what they're doing. I don't know of any representative in congress that really knows anything at all, they're all basically the same with a few exceptions.

It makes me wonder, how many people in congress _aren't_ millionaires?

I don't know the status of "self-actualization" as a scientific idea. Without an operational definition to measure whether someone has "self-actualized" or not, it sounds more like a philosophical construct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_actualization

Does Fresco promote any woo beliefs about medicine?

Ron Paul apparently does:

Ron Paul: Quackery enabler

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/ron_paul_quackery_enabler.php

@Brandon:

Peter says its great to be proven, wrong. He made a big point in Addendum about that, how it should be "celebrated". I've also heard him repeat the sentiment many times since. Such good words, but to him its just words. He can't even admit he was wrong, about anything!

Its not his films, I gave you the example before that he couldn't admit he was wrong when he said in the radio address that the pharmaceutical industry were suppressing homeopathy and vitamin treatments for caner in order to push their expensive procedures and drugs. Why didn't he admit that he was wrong about that? There are no vitamin treatments for cancer and homeopathy is new age nonsense no different to crystal healing or dowsing.

See, this speaks to his creditability. If Peter is wrong he will not admit that, how can you defend this? Do you like the idea of having to triple check every claim he makes because you have no idea if its true or not?

Sorry Brenton, that is nonsense.

That's like saying you should continue to listen to Alex Jones even though the man can't open his mouth without lies coming out.

Why doesn't it concern you that Peter claims he is a skeptic and how he likes to be proven wrong acting like a dedicated researcher, when in reality he will believe in anything that someone says so long as it fits his worldview?

Think about it, why did he say that about homeopathy in the first place? Why did he say that about vitamin treatments?

Its because he probably read it on some website that said the pharmaceutical industry were suppressing these things in order to sell you their expensive treatments. He didn't check to see if those treatments actually existed or what homoeopathy was, the claim agreed with his predetermined beliefs that this is how the pharmaceutical industry acts so he believed it and repeated it as A FACT without question. Later he admits homeopathy is nonsense (someone posted a email from him on the forums) and yet doesn't admit that what he said was WRONG. That is the closest I've ever heard him admit an actual error and it still doesn't count.

In fact since Peter admitted that homeopathy is nonsense, you could even have a valid reason to accuse him of lying when he said it before. However what is more likely to be true is that that just doesn't check on any of these claims and just states them as fact without question. When he is proven wrong, he just doesn't talk about it or pretends it didn't happen because he is just that stubborn.

What would he say in his film today if he remade Zeitgeist? Probably talk about HAARP and how it can control the weather and control peoples minds, maybe also how Climate Change is also a big spooky conspiracy.

Doesn't it disturb you that this is someone who made a film like Zeitgeist that contain not just falsehoods, but lies and made up quotes and all easily provable to be so, and yet cannot bring himself to at least admit that in fact there are several errors in the first film? He can't even do that!

What if it wasn't all the stuff I was saying, what if Peter was a Jew hating anti-semite? Would you say this was irrelevant to the movement and so irrelevant to bring up? I doubt it, I'm sure.

Is this the kind of person you really think is going to help make credible people take the Venus Project seriously?

Don't you think finding this out will make people think the Movement is complete nonsense being led by a lying incompetent fool? And at that point, you'll have lost them won't you? Then then have an uphill battle of trying to convince them that actually the films Zeitgeist promotes aren't really the movement and Peter Joseph's opinions aren't really the movement either so you better not listen to his radio show, but actually do listen anyway because he does talk about the movement etc etc. I mean seriously? You think people will bother with that confusing mess?

@Matt:

Personally I couldn't care less about the religion part, much of it can be proved in other ways it seems. Its just the tip of the ice berg anyway, I prefer the 911 section and the banking conspiracies and they are so wrong it SHOULD BE EMBARRASSING to them. For some it is but some, like Brenton, they have to "apologise" for it while many others just think its correct. I heard several of the ZDAY events are going to show Zeitgeist 1, big surprise. Do you think Peter will suggest they don't? I doubt it, the same way he didn't stop Russian tv (I think it was Russia) from showing Zeitgeist 1 either or why he still has the film with no disclaimer on the main movie's webpage. Which means he has no problem with people being told lies.

"Zeitgeist is LIES!"... someone might think after seeing Zeitgeist 1 and they'd be right. Why on earth would they give the movement a chance after that? And why is it so hard for people like Brenton to see that Zeitgeist and Peter is a massive black stain on their goals?

@Ed,

I focus on the religion aspect because any social movement that ridicules, demonizes or attempts to discredit religion is doomed to fail.

In the Zeitgeist Movement's case, it won't ever even get off the ground in order to fail in such a manner.

But if it did, you can be sure it would be resisted due to the disrespectful way it treats religion.

@Brenton,

"He didn't discredit it with lies. Take the problematic contentions in the earlier part of that section of ZI out and the conclusions towards the end of that part (which I highlighted in an above post) still hold strong. I think if he remade that section it'd just be a big long social commentary, rather than highlighting astrotheology at all."

Bullshit. The fucker lied and you know it. Not only that, he has not retracted a single thing. You don't seem to understand that what you care about doesn't matter when Peter Joseph refuses to retract errors.

I'm not a Christian, but I take issue with discrediting religions based on lies and that is *exactly* what Peter Joseph did. I don't care how you spin it. That's my opinion and you won't change it. The only one who can is Peter Joseph, by admitting what he did. As far as I know, he has yet to do that.

"Well, I've had e-mails from many technocrats and other scientifically oriented people who want to get involved in the Movement regardless of these problems."

When you have to put pants on to communicate with all these "technocrats," I'll believe you. I see no reason to believe you any more than I believe Peter Joseph or the Zeitgeist Movement in general. You've already lied about being involved with Amnesty International.

@Brenton:

He most certainly did elicit support for those treatments. He is NOT just "repeating" what Griffin claimed, he specifically mentions those things he thinks are good points that the book was "BASED ON". That's why he says he doesn't understand why Griffin is against the Movement in the way that he is, because Peter thinks his book was so good. Everything he said sounded absurd once you realise homeopathy is just new age nonsense and not only that in the UK the NHS even have homeopathy clinics anyway! So wrong on all counts!

We know at the time he was interested in Cancer and there was a question (not shown here) regarding Cancer around this time. He also seems to have no regard for saying that most alternative medicine IS nonsense and when asked SPECIFICALLY, he says "homeopathic" and said scientific research needs to be carried out, in other words that we must look into stuff like that as he sees potential value in it.

So I just went and had a look at the radio address transcripts and here are some quotes for you:

EMPHASIS MINE

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php?title=Translation_Projects/Transcription_of_the_radios_address

>>>"It's like the cancer industry. I find it fascinating that Mr. Griffin wrote a book called "A World Without Cancer" and the entire book is based upon cartels taking over, medical establishments refusing treatments, shutting down treatments that are beneficial to people with cancer, etc.. Why? Because they couldn't make money off of those treatments. Most of them were based on nutrition, HOMEOPATHY, etc.. They were oriented in a way that didn't require pharmaceuticals. "<<<

- date: 2009-04-22

In response to his opinion on "alternative medicine":

>>>"Well alternative medicine, as a general term, is a litle bit empty. What I would say is that those treatments that are not evaluated by the scientific establishment are often deemed 'quacky', 'alternative', 'HOMEOPATHIC', etc.. The problem is that the scientific evidence does need to be documented. Typically, these patterns come from trial and error over long periods of time. And because the establishment refuses to recognize it, people don't think there is any validity because the establishment has been ignoring it. Again, the medical establishment is there for self preservation. You wouldn't believe what they have been doing behind the scenes to stop so many things that would be helpful. "<<<

- date: 2009-05-06

And eventually after I explained how stupid Homeopathy is on the forums Peter finally writes and email, repeated on the forums, saying:

>>>"Generally speaking, I think most homeopathy in practice is just wishful thinking and often has a placebo effect... but that doesn't mean the historical practice isn't without value. If you look at the history of it, the basic holistic philosophy is interesting. I certainly don't advocate replacements for modern science (except those practices that are obviously there to maintain the established profit system) but we must keep an open mind.

In the end, I really don't give a shit about homoeopathic ideas themselves. I understand the weird basis they come from. However, I do encourage anyone to examine alternatives to the current medical establish as much as possible.
There is always the need for experimentation. We are wrong a 1000 times often before we are right once."<<<

--------------------

So first he claims that knew that homoeopathy was just "wishful thinking", often having just a "placebo effect" and that he "understand[s] the weird basis" ALL ALONG. Ie. He knew that before he had said it. And yet, why do we get the exact opposite impression from what he ACTUALLY SAID? No hint that homeopathy is anything other than either a viable valid treatment or something that really aught to be looked into. This means he was being deceptive on purpose or he didn't really know what he was talking about.

But just like everything he still won't just admit that homeopathy is complete and utter bunk and starts to leave a little bit of wiggle room for saying that it still might have some medical value anyway and we should all keep an open mind just in case. Which if you agree with btw, you also clearly have no idea what homeopathy is. Try replacing the word homeopathy with "prayer" if that helps make the point clearer for you.

And lastly. You claimed that it doesn't matter what Peter's "opinions" are. Yes it certainly does matter what Peters opinions are. You are obviously hopelessly naive in this case so I ask you to look at politics: While it may seem nice now, if you want to get to the point where you guys are "famous" enough to be talked about in the media, EVERYTHING will be criticised in the movement. EVERYTHING.

Look at how many dumb ass Americans support Palin for example, look how many think Obama is a socialist, that he wasn't even born in the USA. They believe things that are stupid and made up yet the criticisms about Peter Joseph and that he is a paranoid conspiracy theorist that won't admit any errors is a FACT. You can't even argue against that unless you try and defend his stupid views. But you go right on believing that it doesn't matter and no one really cares. You tell me when some real credible engineers and scientists are on board, when he speaks at conferences like TED and is WELL received, and they start taking interest.

Rather on topic, I should also point out that Fresco speaking at a 2012 conference was a really stupid move. I mean he is already associated with conspiracy theorists, now he can be associated with 2012 clowns. What's next? A UFO convention? Is he really so desperate for numbers?

I think its rather telling that he won't go do any proper lectures anywhere with actual scientists and engineers. He says they won't have him, I wonder if you can perchance find out the reason why they don't want him there? I dare say you'll eat your words once you realise I was right. I also find it interesting that he doesn't even have any renewable energy himself. Why is he not off the grid again? Surely he could design some really good special renewable technology himself, right? Nope, apparently not. Just pretty pictures, nice models and a good story.

If you think I'm being harsh, just what do you think actual critics will say? Much, much worse, believe me.

The fact is its very easy to make the Movement, Zeitgeist and the Venus Project look stupid without even making anything up. So instead of getting upset with me you should be asking yourself how to change this. Unfortunately it will require a long hard critical look at the Movement and Peter and "Zeitgeist" as a (form of) brand name's role in it and the priorities of the Venus Project.

"The same is true for Zeitgeist I. And as I've also highlighted, regardless of whether the whole of ZI is wrong - the underlying philosophical (human value) implications still hold strong. Very strong. And that's what'll pull people in after watching that film."

That is a bullshit argument and you know it. The "human value" implications of the Zeitgeist films are not what got them noticed, nor is it what will pull people in or what they'll remember from these ridiculous movies. They will remember 3 things:

1. Jesus didn't exist (utterly false)
2. 9/11 was an inside job (ludicrously, insultingly false)
3. Jewish bankers control the world (racist crap).

I know a lot of people who have been taken in by these films, sad to say, and not a single one of them has ever been intrigued by the "human value" implications. Their reactions, universally, are, "Woooooo! Jesus is a lie! Bush did 9/11! The JOOOOOOOOS are behind everything!"

If the "human value" implications of this movement are so strong, why does anyone need incendiary lies and racist rhetoric to sell them? And if you do decide those things are necessary, what does that say about who you're trying to pitch this folderol to?

You have not explained why, if the conspiracy conclusions of the Zeitgeist films are to be discredited (which you imply you do--though I can't say I'm 100% convinced you believe that), the films have any value in convincing anyone that the movement spawned from them has any validity. A documentary, as the Zeitgeist movies purport to be, must first and foremost have a duty to the truth. If it lies, it's worthless as a movie. We're not talking about some Hollywood history like "Braveheart" where everybody knows and expects the history to be fudged. A documentary must tell the truth. The makers of Zeitgeist deliberately lied to their audience. Please explain to me why this doesn't bother you.

If Zeitgeist 1 did not start out trying to stick it to Christianity it would have been another stupid 9/11 slash Federal Reserve conspiracy movie.

No one would have cared.

Peter Joseph's fame is entirely built on the bogus lies he told because he wanted to discredit Christianity.

People need to not claim Peter is necessarily an anti-semite, the point is many of the arguments truthers DON'T REALISE were originally based on anti-semite claims.

It is not conducive to the conversation here if people are going to be that petty, I'm sorry Matt.