Zeitgeist Adddendum - A Critical Analysis (for the sake of balance)

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by RaKaR

Thanks for your perspective, Member milk and honey.
Hitlers fascists, the Marxist-Leninist Russians and Chinese Communists, as you put it, did indeed promised happiness and a just society to Mankind.
However, i would not 'name just a few' and would add, so did and still do the Free-market Capitalists.

RaKaR, you are making my point. That's exactly why i used the simile of "Hitler's fascists, and Marxist-Lenninist Russians and Chinese communists". I am suggesting that the current pusch for utopia by (propaganda agents of) the 'power elite' who govern the USA, is nothing more than the same old trick from the same old dog with a slightly different mask. With only a slightly new (age) lexicon the mask looks and sounds the same to me.

Originally Posted by RaKaR

I think that the conlusion to draw here is that all those systems have failed for one or another reason; one earlier than the other

From our perspective, those systems were NOT set up to succeed. From their perspective, their idea of success (a phony people's revolution) was a failure from the start. They very successfully ingratiated themselves with the citizens by making (knowingly) false promises of utopia. They certainly were not well motivated 'great ideas' which simply failed. They were scams from the outset, concieved by 'old money'. And now? There is nothing new under the sun. At least it has us talking about it though.

Originally Posted by RaKaR

... and incidentally it is the Free-market Ideology that is NOW onder discussion.

Incidently, nothing could be clearer. But even that contention is a straw man constructed by the 'power elite's "Zeitgeist: Addendum". There is no "free-market" operating in the USA and other economies under 'elite' control. It is a centrally planned, highly corrupt mockery of the "free-market" principle. The "free-market" principle has been replaced at the big end of town by "monopoly-cartelism" with only the veneer of freedom and the crumbs from the cartel's table left to the people.

None of this means that i am unwilling to parse so called 'utopian' ideas. But not from the 'Zeitgeist' crew. Zeig Heil!

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by LiquidSwordz

Adam Smith in his book "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. Capitalists favor a system of free enterprise which means the government should NOT interfere in the economy - that the laws of supply and demand will make sure that the economy runs most efficiently in meeting people's needs.

And this of course exposes the duplicity of monopoly cartelist capitalists.

They supposedly favour non-intervention by government regulatory agencies yet they have utterly hijacked the entire machinery of government in order to grant themselves privileges and to neuter those regulatory agencies. This is certainly NOT a system of "free enterprise".

Thankyou LiquidSwordz for posting Adam Smith's quote. It allows me to point out the lastest attempt by the 'power elite' (through 'Zeitgeist' this time) to demolish the last vestiges of "free enterprise" by pretending that such a system (which we haven't actually got) is responsible for society's ills.

True free enterprise, properly regulated under law, would solve a lot of the current problems and so would an honest money system. Humanity, motivated as it is, is simply not ready for a system without a monetary medium of exchange. In the interim, a lot of changes could be made to the current system to reclaim our economic power from the fascist monolith that is strangling America to death.

[stefaan]

Originally Posted by nivosh

On that note, and maybe on a different thread.

can somebody (Richard T maybe?) please make a list of some of the best eye opening movies that can be seen through the Internet?

movies that show the true agenda, the true banking system etc'...

thank you.

On the Project Camelot Forum there is a section Books, Videos, Articles, etc.
About the true banking system you'll find there, one of the best IMO, The Money Masters

[Bill Ryan]

To NASA LIES:

This is a publicly readable personal message to you - so to speak.

You have done nothing (yet) to warrant being banned. But I personally find your energy unpleasant and so I'd be grateful if you would leave this forum.

This is not a ban. It's a personal request to take your energy elsewhere where it may be appreciated by more people, more attuned to wherever it is that you are at.

With best wishes, Bill

[RaKaR]

Well said, Bill.

Peace and Wisdom.

RaKaR
www.futureofmankind.co.uk

[Mystica]

I watched some of this movie.

Recognizing propaganda, I turned it off.

[Citizen Zeitgeist]

For anybody who believes that ZEITGEIST: ADDENDUM is advocating communist principles, here are the ten planks of the Cummunist Manifesto, along with my own critical analysis of the frenzied allegations made against both the filmmakers and Project Venus.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

This is what is being used by critics of the film to discredit its philosophical essence, but at no point does anybody in the documentary call for the abolition of all property. What they do advocate however, is common ownership of the natural resources of the planet we share and a world without elitism.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Since the film calls for the abolition of money, this would be virtually impossible to implement in such a set of circumstances. However, this system has already been imposed upon every nation, enslaved by debts that can never be repaid.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

At no point in the film does anybody advocate this policy.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Since the filmmakers and Project Venus would be targets of this order, it is already self-evidently irrelevant to this discussion.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The abolition of money would necessitate the abolition of the banking industry, therefore the accusation that the filmmakers advocate this cannot be sustained. Nevertheless, what we are currently witnessing across the world is state monopoly of the high street banks and mortgage companies, pure and simple.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

This has already been done by the bankers and their puppet governments right across the globe and is at no point advocated by the filmmakers.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Western governments, who are secretly controlled by the international banksters, are currently implementing these policies by taking ownership of the commercial banking industry and all the property and assets contained within it, while the privately-owned central banks are already synonymous with the state.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Since the fimmakers predict that technology can and should replace the vast majorty of the human labour force, for the greatest benefit of all, this is both irrelevant to the discussion and the means by which the Nazis almost completely eradicated unemployment from 1933-36.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Commonly known as global monopolisation of the food industry and urbanisation of the rural heartlands. This is in no way alluded to or implied by any of the values, opinions and beliefs expressed in the film.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

I suspect most of the people on this forum would agree with one or two of these policies. The makers of the film advocate education that empowers our children with knowledge and technical ability, rather than the mandatory system that we have now, which coerces young people into becoming compliant wage-slaves who never question what they are told by established authority.

With respect to the comments of the much-admired Mr Griffin, I can only imagine that he has misconstrued the filmmakers' philosophy, or that he is too long in the tooth to change his fundamental beliefs about why the corrupt system doesn't work. Otherwise, I find it difficult to imagine how he could aim so wide of the mark in his accusation of an obvious communist agenda.

As for the genuinely disappointing Mr Jones, he does himself more discredit than his ever-increasing number of critics could ever hope to sustain every time he advocates violent revolution and free market capitalism, while raking in advertising revenue by ramping up the fear factor to the max. If the best solution to our problems he can offer is to give everybody a bible and a gun, it is time for the truth movement to tune out of his frequency.

Peace, freedom, love and light,

Z
http://www.freetheplanet.info

[stefaan]

Originally Posted by Citizen Zeitgeist

For anybody who believes that ZEITGEIST: ADDENDUM is advocating communist principles, here are the ten planks of the Cummunist Manifesto, along with my own critical analysis of the frenzied allegations made against both the filmmakers and Project Venus.
...

You're totally right.
However, to repeat myself... Some here (a lot in fact) are indoctrinated with the idea that : communism equals bad. It's spooned in from birth on. When they talk about communism, they talk about anything but communism, not having any clue of what communism is all about. They cannot help it. It's like a defect juke boxe: if you push that button, you get this song, if you push another button, you get the same song, etc...
The top... corporations, banks... toke over media, schools... more than a century ago, and fed the people the same lies, over and over again. When the "communist treat" came along, just another new lie, amongst the other lies, couldn't harm, could it?
I don't know if it's not too late for all those indoctrinated people, but it would be nice if they could learn communism is as bad as capitalism, or capitalism is as bad as communism. We will have to find something new, something better. Maybe something between both (socialism?). Or something completely different (project Venus?)

[Citizen Zeitgeist]

The most enduring political misconception of the 20th century was/is the myth of the left-right paradigm. Whether we are talking about Socialism, Capitalism, Corporatism, Communism or Fascism, the banksters, the monied aristocracy and the Vatican are able to entend or consolidate their power and wealth. Anybody who is defending any kind of monetary system is either guided by mypoic thinking, limited research and social programming, or hidden agendas and self-interest.

Localised, self-sufficient, sustainable communities built upon the ideological foundations of individual responsibility and mutual cooperation will bring freedom, peace and unprecedented prosperity for all humanity on Planet Earth. However, this will not be possible without the abolition of the monetary systems that perpetuate violence and inequality, the life-blood of the Capitalist-Communist-Financial-International.

[Richard T]

Originally Posted by Citizen Zeitgeist

Anybody who is defending any kind of monetary system is either guided by mypoic thinking, limited research and social programming, or hidden agendas and self-interest.

Thoughts are always myopic. They reflect on memory.
And since the beginning of this cycle, all man has known was a trading system based on currency.

So it is not surprising.

Leaving what you know to enter the field of inexperience, without the support of experimented guarantees, is not something humanity is willing to do short of having no choice.

Even those who hope for such a possibility will still wait for someone else to establish solid foundations before they agree to trade their condition for another one.

People want proof. They need to be secured with the form. Because the mind is trapped in the form. And they will trade forms if they see a potential gain for them.

You cannot change the system without the individuals changing themselves. Otherwise, it will just be another version of the same. People will still seek leaders to show them the way. They will look for a model that suits them. They will perpetuate their ancient consciousness that needs support from the form. And this cannot be.

The system is there to effectively maintain a lock on the ancient psychology. To maintain the mind in check in a feeling of powerlessness. And I do not believe that the implementation of a new system will change man at a fundamental level. Man will adapt to it but will remain attached to it, seeking his security in the system. He will not have evolved, he will have adapted from the same psychological foundation. The form will mold the psychology again and the individual will remain dependant from the form.

A fundamental revolution is required within man himself, rather than around the form of his civilization. In the past, revolutions affected the form used by civilization, tomorrow the mind will be the seat of a permanent state of internal revolution. And the form of his civilization will be constantly adjusted to the internal state of consciousness rather then the other way around, as it has been historically.

Without this total change in man, without the death of psychology, there cannot be the emerging of a new paradigm for that man. The foundation for a new level of energy cannot be built on top of the foundation of the ancient energy.

Ancient psychology cannot project something that is totally new, because psychology always reflects on its memory. So it extrapolates forms that agree with it.

What must be is something totally new that cannot be before the old has been ejected.

And the old is within man himself.

[peacelovinman]

Originally Posted by Citizen Zeitgeist

The most enduring political misconception of the 20th century was/is the myth of the left-right paradigm. Whether we are talking about Socialism, Capitalism, Corporatism, Communism or Fascism, the banksters, the monied aristocracy and the Vatican are able to entend or consolidate their power and wealth. Anybody who is defending any kind of monetary system is either guided by mypoic thinking, limited research and social programming, or hidden agendas and self-interest.

Localised, self-sufficient, sustainable communities built upon the ideological foundations of individual responsibility and mutual cooperation will bring freedom, peace and unprecedented prosperity for all humanity on Planet Earth. However, this will not be possible without the abolition of the monetary systems that perpetuate violence and inequality, the life-blood of the Capitalist-Communist-Financial-International.

I would agree with this, apart from your comment on those folks who defend a monetary system. Your point about all socio-political "isms" being the same is what Griffin has been telling people for years.

Griffin is someone I respect because he says what he honestly believes and has done the research to back it up (see www.freedom-force.org). However, I don't agree with everything he says.

Your point about communities is spot on, I believe. I also agree with you about the monetary system - some may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one (as someone once said!).

[Richard T]

It is unfortunate that so many intelligent men get caught with ideologies.

Ideology makes both blind and deaf. people don't talk, they argue. And they end up the mouth piece of an ideology that controls them. And no man should be controlled by an ideology.

An ideology is as much a rape of intelligence than death is an insult to intelligence.

[d. macaluso]

Originally Posted by Richard T

A fundamental revolution is required within man himself, rather than around the form of his civilization. In the past, revolutions affected the form used by civilization, tomorrow the mind will be the seat of a permanent state of internal revolution. And the form of his civilization will be constantly adjusted to the internal state of consciousness rather then the other way around, as it has been historically.

Without this total change in man, without the death of psychology, there cannot be the emerging of a new paradigm for that man. The foundation for a new level of energy cannot be built on top of the foundation of the ancient energy.

Ancient psychology cannot project something that is totally new, because psychology always reflects on its memory. So it extrapolates forms that agree with it.

What must be is something totally new that cannot be before the old has been ejected.

And the old is within man himself.

Your words resound, Richard T.

[martian31v]

hi all. i have to disagree with richard t on his latest point "you cannot change the system without the individuals changing themselves", especially relative to the zeitgeist position.

you cannot separate the individual from the system, nor the system from the individual. they exist symbiotically. the system emerges from the individual, while the individual evolves from the system. we are all products of the system(s) we create. thus, (we) individuals will/do create systems, which will inevitably change ourselves as individuals. i believe this is the central argument in the zeitgeist addendum, which is sound and valid.

[Richard T]

This is why people have no identity and this lack of identity makes them seek to identify to forms that gives them promises of security.

When people have an actual identity, they can't be influenced. They are masters of their personal destiny. In the mean time, they take free will as the consequence of being influenced and in the future they will be free.

If people are molded by society, it is no surprise that we have such a sad situation. Their consciousness is not based on the reality of their source, it is based on the experimental conditions of the planet.

[martian31v]

Originally Posted by Richard T

This is why people have no identity and this lack of identity makes them seek to identify to forms that gives them promises of security.

When people have an actual identity, they can't be influenced. They are masters of their personal destiny. In the mean time, they take free will as the consequence of being influenced and in the future they will be free.

If people are molded by society, it is no surprise that we have such a sad situation. Their consciousness is not based on the reality of their source, it is based on the experimental conditions of the planet.

hi richard. i respectfully disagree with your understanding of personal identity. we all have actual identities to some degree, and that identity is always being influenced by our surroundings. to maintain a fixed identity at this point in our reality is extremely shortsighted. it ignores a massive amount of information/change that is constantly streaming in. people are molded by society, and people mold society. again, we do exist symbiotically with our environment and the systems or social structures we create. i don't see that as a sad or negative relationship. it is an evolutionary relationship that allows for the individual to co-create its reality. and this relationship does allow for consciousness to be connected to an absolute or fixed source. there is nothing in this perspective of identity that would necessarily disconnect us with source. hope to hear back, its been nice communicating with you. martian31v

[Richard T]

Hey martian31v, that's perfect. The idea is not to agree but to see clearly in the end, which requires creative opposition.

If you consider that the reality of man does not have its origin in matter, that this origin decided to descend in this dense plane of reality. If you consider that this is the actual identity behind consciousness and that being on an experimental planet the conditions of infusion in matte forced a loss of consciousness. If you consider that the soul, that extraordinary memory accumulated as it went along in its ancient experience must at one point be recuperated by the original identity. You might then consider that psychology, its attachement to memory, is simply a temporary artifact of the limit imposed on the soul.

The original identity of the individual could not have penetrated matter directly itself. Its energy requiring extremely advanced and refined force fields, what we refer to as subtle bodies. In order to create those bodies, the light seed that was sent as the central atom of the soul ended up becoming attached, or fused, to what became cellular consciousness accross the aeons of cellular evolution. And it lost the absolute consciousness of its origin, an origin that already is located in a world that has access to all the information concerning all of the universal sciences that are repertoriated, not just at the astral level and the mental level, but even beyond those layers of reality, layers that even those lovely alien visitors cannot directly access.

Symbology is a consequence of a science manipulated by what is called the spirits of the form. They create forms to contain programs that are perceived as symbols in their interpretation by psychology, but in reality those symbols contain an energy that can be used to manipulate the organization of worlds that evolve in the astral, and that includes the soul as a progressive intelligence.

But the spirit is not a progressive intelligence. It is a creative intelligence. But so long as we are captive of the soul as a vehicle, we are englobed by the soul function that is to accumulate experience to adjust its science of cellular consciousness and this is perceived, at the level of the ego, as memory, a memory upon which it is forced to reflect because the full reality of its origin lies beyond the hull of that vehicle.

People talk of a new paradigm.

What I am saying is that a new paradigm cannot be made of the old paradigm.

And the historical function of rationalized comparative knowledge, based on reflection on the memory of the experience, as much as it is important today will be of no value tomorrow.

I have to run for now.

Take care.

[martian31v]

[What I am saying is that a new paradigm cannot be made of the old paradigm.]


can a new paradigm emerge from the old?

[Richard T]

Originally Posted by martian31v

[What I am saying is that a new paradigm cannot be made of the old paradigm.]


can a new paradigm emerge from the old?

The old paradigm, the one that is currently nearing the end of its time, was based on the movement of light descending in the dense zones of the material universe. As it descended, it had to do it using the laws of matter, and was segregated to the astral laws of psychology. This is what we called devolution.

The new paradigm. will be based on the reversal of that movement and even though the material body will remain subjected to the laws of matter, the psychic entity will be returned to the laws of the systemic worlds, what people refer to the laws of light, what we will call evolution.

Those laws, those of the astral and those of light, are in total opposition. They do not belong to one another. This implies that the new paradigm cannot emerge on the basis of the old one, but that the energy that was spent in the experience, isolated in a material capsule, made ignorant of the science of its consciousness, miust be transmutated, not just transformed using the same material, but totally transmutated into a radically new quality. It must be transmutated from dark to light.

What was learned and was useful during the devolutive experience will not be useful then. Not because what was learned had no purpose, but because it cannot be useful for a consciousness that does not abide by the laws that what was learned belonged any more.

What was planetary in nature will revert to its cosmic identity.

To give an idea, fear has been intrinsically tied to the human experience. In order to face the materialization of his reality, he will have had to eliminate all fear. Otherwise, he would be so shocked by the extraordinary influx of science that comes from his own reality on another plane than that of his devolutive experience, that he would implode and his planetary mind would be destroyed. So there is a time necessary and fear must first be erradicated.

So, as much as fear appeared a natural part of human consciousness, even though fear is not psychological but psychically induced but was psychologically identified to, as much will fear be alien to the new consciousness.

As much as ignorance forced humanity to learn based on empirical methods, as much will he be infused with a science that is already part of the quality of his own reality and rather than learning, he will increase the rate of vibration of his consciousness to become more and more capable of absorbing higher levels of energies and sciences.

The new man, as an individual will have no bearing whatsoever to the ancient collective humanity, except for the appearance of his material body, a body whose evolution and construction is now completed.

So, the answer I would give to this question is no, the new paradigm cannot sprout from the old.