Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - What makes the Venus Project different from any other utopia cult? - Page 6

[ Add Tags ]

[ Return to General Discussion | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 17:45
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

@Muertos:

"The makers of Zeitgeist deliberately lied to their audience. Please explain to me why this doesn't bother you. "

Also don't you love the double standard people like Brenton can't see? The moment the government lies or scientists sound like they were wrong in some aspect (lets say Climate Change) they claim they are justified in either ignoring them or in permanently distrusting everything they say and believing every damn claim against them without critical review because they are "just asking questions" and they just want a new "independent investigation!". And yet they have no accountability for how many lies and falsehoods are in their own movements. To people like Brenton, it doesn't matter if Zeitgeist is full of lies and distortions completely unaware of how this appears. Apparently it won't matter to people THIS time the way it matters in every other area.

#151 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 17:49
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Ed,

For the record, there was nothing petty about it.

I think there are valid reasons to suspect that Peter Joseph is knowingly pandering to anti-Semites in order to increase his personal fame.

And if that is the case, does it really matter whether he is one too?

#152 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 17:51
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

@Matt:

I used to think Ron Paul was good as well, I didn't know of any connection to anti-Semitism until you told me. I used to believe most of the stuff in Zeitgest as well. That obviously didn't make me an anti-Semite, I don't think it makes Peter an anti-Semite and this is not the picture I have ever gotten from him and as you can see I will criticise him of it if I thought he was. I have listened to many interviews, been to the premier of Addendum in London and been to his seminar in London and a Fresco seminar too. What Peter would do is find some reason to apologise for Paul if he didn't know about the connection, why? For the same reason he still defended homeopathy, he doesn't want to admit any error even if he knows homeopathy is bunk!

I think it is just a pointless argument to make the connection to anti-semiticsm. The most i will say is that there is a real connection with 911 Truth movement to anti-Semitism but not every truther is an anti-semite. People can believe the bullshit about the banks while not realising they are believing claims/quotes made up by anti-Semites to attack Jews. It says more about their incompetence and willingness to believing whatever they are told without question rather than anything else IMO.

The point is, don't say Brenton is a anti-semite defender unless you can show more evidence he is one (and yes you'd need more). Its just going to detract from a better conversation real fast.

#153 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 17:54
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Ed,

That's the difference, man.

You are willing to say something is wrong when its wrong.

Peter Joseph won't do that. In my opinion, which you do not have to agree with, that is actually worse because Peter Joseph is deliberately catering to racism in order to line his own pockets.

I think you might have taken that comment a bit too close to heart.

I never called Brenton an anti-Semite. I called him an anti-Semite defender.

Looks like you and I are having an edit war.

I don't think the comment is out of line and I won't retract it. Sorry.

#154 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 17:56
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

What I see here, Ed, is a take on a very typical conspiracist tactic, and one that's very common to Zeitgeist followers. They usually say, before beginning their shtick, that they "don't agree with everything in the movie" (often singling out one of the movie's three parts as the one they disagree with). So what you hear is stuff like:

"I don't agree with the stuff about Christianity, but Zeitgeist made me think about 9/11 and who really controls our money..."
"The 9/11 stuff is pap, but it really made me think about religion..."
"The Jesus stuff is a bit thick, but it raised some good points about the federal reserve..."

This is a twist on the Trojan horse tactic used by less sophisticated conspiracists who precede their statements with, "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but..." and then rattle off something that sounds logical at first blush. Then as you get deeper into the discussion with them, they suddenly hit you with all their conspiracist nonsense, but if you call them out on being a conspiracy theorist, suddenly they're "just asking questions."

The JAQ meme in particular infuriates me because it's disingenuous. They don't ask any questions that don't lead to their conclusion that it was a conspiracy, and their attempts to claim "I'm not a conspiracy theorist" are nothing but a fig leaf.

I see Breton using a subtler version of the same tactic here. Breton pretends to agree that the conspiracy conclusions of the films are spurious (again, not certain this is a true belief, but I'll give Breton the benefit of the doubt) but then argues about how wonderful Zeitgeist really is and how you can totally forget about that ooky conspiracy stuff and just embrace the peace, love and happiness of the Zeitgeist Movement. I see a disconnect there, because if the Zeitgeist movement was credible as a philosophical movement on its own, why should they have been associated with conspiracy movies in the first place, and, if they now reject conspiracism, why don't they make a bigger deal about doing so? (I think that's the point you're making too, Ed).

#155 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 17:56
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

@matt:

"I think you might have taken that comment a bit too close to heart. "

Its merely because I know the reaction I would have had at the time and I also know what reaction Brenton will have if you press that argument.

#156 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 17:57
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Ed,

Well, that's his problem. I really don't care whether Brenton's feelings get hurt. He needs to look at what he is defending, and if me posting that accomplishes it then so be it.

I've got no tolerance for racism, people who profit from it or those who defend them.

Sorry, but I don't.

My intolerance extends to all my friends on the left when they start bitching about international bankers. It is not exclusive to conspiracy theorists.

#157 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:06
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

The anti-Semitic aspects of conspiracy theories are always the toughest to deal with. I think that's because very few modern conspiracy believers really understand where their theories originated from and that the vast majority of theories that are de rigeur right now are redresses of old "Jewish cabal" theories that have been out there for decades, but have to be disguised to appeal to modern audiences that blanch at outright anti-Semitism.

As has been pointed out, take most of the conspiracy theories popular in the 1900-1940 time frame, substitute the word "banker" or "Federal Reserve" for Jew, and that's what you have today.

I didn't even understand until fairly recently that David Icke's reptilians are a coded stand-in for Jews specifically designed to appeal to kids weaned on science fiction. And I consider myself pretty learned in the dark arts of conspiracy theories!

I don't think Breton has said anything anti-Semitic, but I also don't think he really appreciates the anti-Semitic roots of the conspiracy theories pushed by the Zeitgeist films. When you come down to it, isn't "Jesus didn't really exist" just a hip retread of the "Jews killed Jesus" thing?

#158 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:07
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

I'm reading these posts as I do some work and don't have time to respond to them all but I just cannot resist quickly dropping this.

>> My intolerance extends to all my friends on the left when they start bitching about international bankers. <<

So now YOU are alleging that if someone bitches about international bankers that they're bitching about Jews? So I've got the bottom of this particular accusation! You're generalizing that all 'bitching' about international bankers is racist because (you believe) most if not all international bankers are Jewish.

Now that's racist.

To quote Catherine Tate: "What a load of old shit."

#159 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:08
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Meurtos,

"I don't think Breton has said anything anti-Semitic"

He hasn't, nor did I ever claim he did.

"but I also don't think he really appreciates the anti-Semitic roots of the conspiracy theories pushed by the Zeitgeist films."

I would go further and say he overlooks it on purpose, which is what really rubs me the wrong way.

#160 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:09
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Brenton,

I've been doing this long enough to know where "international bankers" gripes stem from.

I remind my fellow lefties where that shit comes from, and they don't do it any longer.

Can't say the same for conspiracy theorists though.

#161 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
SkyPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:10
(0)
 

Level: 3
CS Original

Does everything have to be about anti-semitism? I see no evidence Peter J is an anti-semite. He lists some ant-semetic sources for the movie. (like Eric Hufschmid) I think it is likely that he just doesn't know who these people are. In a video I saw, he said he didn't know who Alex Jones was when he made Zeitgeist.

#162 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:11
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Sky,

Why is becoming famous using anti-Semitic conspiracy theories better than being an anti-Semite?

I truly don't understand the disconnect here. I am not being deliberately obtuse.

#163 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:14
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

@Muertos:

Oh you are totally right about Breton being silly when he says that we can still take away the philosophical idea from ZG1

Lets start with what I still like about Zeitgeist 1. I like the way its put together. The music, the atmosphere, the editing. I like it, from a film making standpoint, its quite original. If I ignore all the facts I even like Part 2, HAHAHAHAHAHAAA.

But anyway back to what Breton is talking about. One of my good friends who went by the name psychspy who was a moderator there for some time but quit the movement for (it seems) similar reasons (though not quite so critical) to my own. He had a similar idea as Brenton after I explained and convinced him that Zeitgeist 1 was mostly nonsense. He explained to people that you should look at it merely as a philosophical idea.

To me then this comes down to 4 main ideas: The government and the media don't tell the truth. Don't believe everything you hear. The media saturates your life with irrelevances (advertising etc) in order to make you think irrelevant stuff is important rather than REAL things in order to make money. And we can change the world if we want it badly enough (that hippy bit at the end, that I kinda liked since I'm a soppy git)

Obviously points one and two are hilariously ironic while these sentiments are provided while telling you lie after lie after falsehood is hardly something to promote simply because it says those things. We might as well look at David Icke, it is actually possible to glean some nice sentiments out of the son of god, alien reptilian shapeshifting believing guy who hears voices too, if you listen hard for it. But why would you want to do that?

The third sentiment is accurate but the "Story of Stuff" even though it is very different in feel to Zeitgeist at least doesn't have to lie in order to get this point across as far as I can see. The last point which is really seen right at the end of film is silly to advocate as a reason to watch the entire thing precisely because it is really only at the end of the film and is just a nice hippy love fest anyway.

In conclusion if they want to make a film that talks about those sentiments then DO that, you don't need to have all that crap in there to do it.

(note yes I forgot to mention the Jesus stuff, that can also be explained via other means the main sentiment there is that the Bible is just rehashes of old previous myths and legends and there's really nothing special about it, which is true. )

Brenton is just trying to rationalise a reason not to discard ZG1 altogether. I understand why he is trying to do that, but it is foolish.

#164 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:21
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Ed,

"Brenton is just trying to rationalise a reason not to discard ZG1 altogether. I understand why he is trying to do that, but it is foolish."

I don't. Please explain.

What is so hard about admitting you're wrong about something?

#165 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
SkyPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:21
(0)
 

Level: 3
CS Original

The origins of some of these things come from anti-semites. That doesn't mean that someone who believes that international bankers rule the world is an anti-semite, when they never said that the bankers were Jews. It seems like the same kind of argument people use when they say evolution is wrong because it was connected to the eugnics movement.

#166 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:22
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

@Matt:

I don't necessarily agree with your point anyway, you can talk about bankers without necessarily be talking about Jews. Yes a lot of the head "bankers" are Jews, but you can come at the arguments from a different perspective. You aren't despising the bankers because they are Jews, you are despising them because they create money out of nothing and want to rule the world. Same arguments but you have no interest in whether they are Jews or not. See?

While many of the arguments conspiracists do stem from anti-Semites people do cry anti-Semitism too often. If you are critical of Israel - the state - you really have to be careful for just this reason.

Ron Jonson who made The Lizards and the Jews reporting on David Icke who regularly gets accused of being an anti-semite (with good reason) still concluded that he probably does actually think they are alien reptilians rather than just a way to pretend he isn't an anti-semite.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2912878405399014351#

I am in two minds about it still, but if there's a question regarding David Icke of all people then there definitely should be with Peter Joseph.

EDIT:

You say:

"I also have an extremely hard time believing Peter Joseph did not know who Alex Jones was because of his support for Ron Paul. "

Yes so do I, but that I believe is his way of covering his ass like I said before. He can't admit that he knew who Alex was as that makes him seem silly for thinking Alex was different. But he can try for some plausible denial where he can pretend he didn't really know who he was, which would make him seem a lot more sensible (but what his fans forget, it also makes him seem a lot more incompetent). Same with homeopathy, same with I imagine Ron Paul as well.

#167 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:24
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Sky,

I think where you and I might disagree here is where you don't believe Peter Joseph was aware of where these theories stem from. I have a real hard time believing that, I also have a real hard time believing he did not know who Alex Jones was.

Conspiracy theorists have always been extremely incestuous, borrowing from each other and quoting each other. I have an extremely hard time believing that Peter Joseph made that movie without knowing who Alex Jones was. I also have an extremely hard time believing Peter Joseph did not know who Alex Jones was because of his support for Ron Paul.

@Ed,

"I don't necessarily agree with your point anyway"

You don't have to. But in my experience people suddenly become a lot more careful with their word usage after becoming aware as to what they're parroting. I am not against being critical of banks, but there are ways to do it without using the code words that keep this garbage going.

#168 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
SkyPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:29
(0)
 

Level: 3
CS Original

>"Lets start with what I still like about Zeitgeist 1. I like the way its put together. The music, the atmosphere, the editing. I like it, from a film making standpoint, its quite original. If I ignore all the facts I even like Part 2, HAHAHAHAHAHAAA."<

I don't like to use terms like propaganda or brainwashing too much, because these terms are overused by conspiracy theorists to describe anything they disagree with. However, Zeitgeist is the most emotionally manipulative piece of propaganda garbage I have ever seen. Hundereds of "inspirtational" quotes? 20 minutes of blackness listening to some guy talk? Images of war thrown on screen in rapid-fire? Showing the WTC get hit by the plane 50 times in a row? It's sick. I felt myself wanting to like the movie too, even though I knew it was all wrong.

#169 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:31
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

@Matt:

>>>>"Brenton is just trying to rationalise a reason not to discard ZG1 altogether. I understand why he is trying to do that, but it is foolish"

>I don't. Please explain.
>What is so hard about admitting you're wrong about something?

Its very simple, if he accepts what we're saying it means he then needs to start the job of getting Peter to get rid of that embarrassing film and putting up disclaimers saying it has nothing to do with the movement and that it contains numerous falsehoods that should not be confused with the movement in any sense.

In other words, it opens a big can of worms he doesn't want to have to deal with. Why doesn't he want to have to deal with it? Because what would have to be done would simply not be done. Peter would refuse, others would not agree, others (truthers) would defend the film. It would never happen.

So instead he is trying to find any reason at all why there's still value in it.

#170 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:33
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Ed,

I don't get it.

I just don't.

I'm sitting here trying to understand such a perspective and I just can't do it.

#171 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:39
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

@Sky:

"I don't like to use terms like propaganda or brainwashing too much, because these terms are overused by conspiracy theorists ..... Images of war thrown on screen in rapid-fire? Showing the WTC get hit by the plane 50 times in a row? It's sick. I felt myself wanting to like the movie too, even though I knew it was all wrong. "

Oh I agree, it was propaganda. I believe however it was unintentional, I don't believe Peter realised that is what he was doing outside consciousnessly trying to influence people. Keep reading...

You see as I also come from a film based background if I really believed everything in that film this is also the way I'd probably go about making a film about it in a similar way. In film and music (both of which he is involved with) you are always trying to provide an emotive response, its not about the facts. Of course this also happens in mainstream documentaries as well (maybe to a slightly lesser extent) that I'm sure you probably wouldn't have a problem with.

When you really believe you are right about something like I think Peter believed he was at the time you can easily get wrapped up in providing an emotional way of providing that information, especially when you are used to doing just that with music and film.

#172 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:42
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

Man, it is just so hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt that refuses to retract any errors and says so many things I just do not find plausible like the not knowing who Alex Jones was, etc.

#173 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:46
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

@Matt:

I think I've explained it very clearly, I don't see what you don't get.

I'm not saying he is right in any way, I'm explaining how and why I think he is trying to stop himself from having to deal with the consequences of accepting what we are saying about Zeitgeist 1. The consequences of which I have already explained. In order to not deal with those consequences he HAS to say there is a good philosophical message there at least! He is trying to find some reason NOT to discard it.

So as I said before, I understand the reason why he would say something like that. I don't agree obviously, but that I think is the psychological reason for it.

If this is something that still doesn't make sense to you, I don't think I'll be able to explain it better. Maybe someone else can.

you also said:
"Man, it is just so hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt that refuses to retract any errors and says so many things I just do not find plausible like the not knowing who Alex Jones was, etc. "

I understand and this is really what I've been trying to tell Brandon. You would be forgiven for having the opinion you have even though the truth isn't quite so bad in my opinion. The fact is Peter has destroyed his credibility so you are well within your rights to say he created propaganda to spread lies and anti-semitic claims. Its correct, but not completely accurate. Not that this will matter to the media if they ever get big enough to be properly addressed by it.

#174 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:49
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Ed,

No, what I don't understand is why someone would damage their personal credibility like that to uphold Peter Joseph's.

#175 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:52
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

@Matt:

"No, what I don't understand is why someone would damage their personal credibility like that to uphold Peter Joseph's. "

That's not the reason why he is doing it. He isn't trying to defend Peter's credibility IMO as why he would say ZG1 still has merit.

If he accepts Zeitgeist 1 is wrong and embarrassing to the promoting the Venus Project, can you see what that means? It means if he is to remain intellectually honest he HAS to convince Peter to remove it and issue a very VERY strongly worded statement about it. He has to convince others it is also for the best.

Here's the point here: This WILL NEVER HAPPEN and he knows it will never happen. Therefore, in order to not feel intellectually dishonest he has to come up with some kind of rationalisation for not having to think about it. Its completely backwards logic I do understand, but the mind doesn't always think rationally when it thinks its being rational :)

#176 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:54
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

@Ed,

"Therefore, in order to not feel intellectually dishonest he has to come up with some kind of rationalisation for not having to think about it."

But then why post about it here of all places? I would think the best way to keep such a rationalization going is to minimize your exposure to hostility towards it.

Hopefully I'm not being annoying. If I didn't genuinely want to understand I would not have asked.

#177 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:56
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

@Matt:

"But then why post about it here of all places? I would think the best way to keep such a rationalizing going is to minimize your exposure to hostility towards it. "

Indeed, but then I did the same thing (just not here).

I also have a lot more experience dealing with "woo" so maybe his disenchantment will outlast mine or maybe he will convince himself his apologetics are acceptable to him while I just couldn't do it anymore.

#178 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 18:57
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

Maybe its an age thing. I already tried to save the world. It kicked my ass.

#179 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Feb 09, 2010 - 19:09
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

>> I would think the best way to keep such a rationalization going is to minimize your exposure to hostility towards it. <<
Here to dialogue with Edward because he essentially advocates the exact same thing as The Venus Project.

#180 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]