To be honest and remain integrity I must say that there are a facts in the movie that i very much agree with. I do not agree with the interpretation of that facts. There are some things in the movie that I could sympathise with and agree. The movie has its apeal for some reason. There are things that it say is true. One of the biggest of such an issue is the
a) The society blocks the scientific progress. For me the problem is the power and corporations and not money per se.
It all have to do how the current economic is defined in the TZM. It makes it more rational than it really is.
He misunderstand the position that the Comte and other haters of christiniay had. They were not at all not religious people. They liked to portriat themselves like so. Lets look at the Comte on of the earliest proponents of ideas that the authors of TZM have as well.
He have a strong misunderstanding what the process of scientific progress is and it is not dependant most of time on the funds. He had found a jack fesco that thinks the otherwise and that is why he is deeply influenced by his way of thinking on that matter.
It is funny that he quote about the medicine being a blessing. There have been a lot of pharmacides and problems with the medicine and pharmacy. Most of the pharmacy studies are statistical studies and those lack the validity to be called scientific, as scientific method involved experiment as its main way to distinguish truth from falseness. It is imposible for the stochastic sciences to be called a sciences following strickly the pattern of the scientific method.
But I guess it is not the goal of the TZM to be honest with themselves and with the reader. They would rather call ridiculous mixture of things that are clearly wrong, somewhat wrong with the stochastic – a probably wrong. It is a tactic to make a good impression. It is a manipulation of relative meassurement. One might seem to be a taller standing near the dwarf, and woman seems more womanly standing near a manly man. That is the same with stochastics being close to astrology and oracles. One would bet more on the stochastics, but one would not have to bet if it would not be stochastics but experimentally confirmed sciences.
So its hipocrisy to say someone is not fully scientific if someone itself is not fully scientific.
Scientific worldview is the oxymoron in my opinion. Science stands for lack of suppositions and worldview is based on suppositions.
I know that someone might have thought of a worldview that survived some trials. It still does not make sense, because if a worldview survived the trials that science imposes it is no longer a worldview but a fact. So either it is not a worldview, or is it not a science. I would say both – it is a religion.
Such a point of view need to be itself trialed, if not it is a hipocritical sentence making a religious statement.
b) Religions are important. But he makes one of the biggest mistake that many people do. He thinks that every religion is epithamy of traditions and lack of religion is epithamy of liberty. That is clearly an argument out of ignorance. There is no such thing as a lack of belief.
Based on the litertature and the language and the way the author is towards other beliefs shows he has a strong beliefs and that shows what those belifes are.
Natural law is a roman law. It looks really silly when one says – let us choose natural law instead of a roman law, it is like a roman law was not religious. Cicero had stated that the best the rome had was its piousness. So if scientologists from the TZM says that they call their silly laws that we will prove are wrong in this following presentation, call them natural law, that means that scientologists, neopositivists are just another branch of the same religion of rome.
It is the only role of neopositivist. It was the same with positivist, both were declined to be a folly within the scientific community. Their goal is creating the pseudoatheist, but in the reality to be a specific kind of religious sect like many concience positivist were like Comte.
So the scientific worldview is – without religions… Ok… But it was already proven to be false. Religions have not died and will not die. It is the same rubbish as in the enlightement, positivism and now in the neoneopositivism that Zeitgeist want to claim that it is something completly new. No it is as old as the world. People are claiming they know something that they have no idea that they do not know, only because they know a little about something else.
Theistic elevation above physical reality? What is reality? Does he mean miracles? Rarely believers expect miracles and if so they are catholics.
Eufemistic language – beware.
Religion is not metamagic – it is the lie of positivism in the sciences of knowledge about religions. They are basicly saying that science had came from magic, as well as religion. Science in that mega simplistic language is a proper magic and religion is improper magic. Both notions are wrong and it was proven to be wrong. It was said in the book that is criticized very much a golden branch.
If they mean that low level of science in their model – I would be afraid… very afraid.
We as society must be aware of false scientific concepts told as truth much more. People are aware of unproven concepts but if you lie to them it is proven and is not need to be argued, you open a new level of tyrany not ever seen in the earth.
From a sociological point of view that is very dangerous. Why? People vary in their attitude, they are not a robots, and nothing suggest it will be different. There are some group of people being very uncritical. If you make those critical say that they do not need to be critical because it is „proven” then you can have an exceeding amount of power in the society. And the power corrupt, great amount of power corrupt greatly.
Science especially is profound to change what science says… so constructing upon science is a disaster in itself. It will not only put a lot of unrest, but it will eventually destroy the science itself if not already destroyed in this weird movement.
What is wrong with certainity? What came wrong from it? Prove it. Because I can prove many crimes came from uncertainity especially if it come to the uncertainity in self evaluation.
Science is not thinking. Science is a vague term. If he mean scientific method it was devised by religious people as for them to be able to be left alone. If one would use science against the religious beliefs that would stand against everything that scientific method had ever stand. That would not be scientific method any more.
Science as they are describing is a voodoo stick. The weird thing is that the author is aware of that. And he say – hey….. it might look like that.. but. And some silly excuses and word magic, and expressions that do the APRIORI conclusions in the name of science. Science is all against the apriori conclusions it is all about aposteriori. So he makes disfavour and destroy the validity of science by using it against other apriori beliefs.
Symbiosis – he again use it in apriori Gaia/Frygia/Maryja concept that is deeply religious when he say interdependant relation of everything. Wow… so much delusion. Science as proper science is not interested in apriori statements.
TZM just hijack the term science by not understanding it.
Using the world external will not make it scientific you know? Neither synergic, neither system. It is just a fancy apriori beliefs exactly like the first positivists had. There is no difference at all.
Earth system is the concept of gaia. That makes no connection to the term science ok?
Human system just like gaia system? Some another god?
Can we measure the integrity of belief system? Science have nothing to do with it….. But neopossitivism thought it did
Right now he said of Gaia concept of how how to evaluate the world? Subject it to the Freia/Gaia belief a primary God…
Common end for me that is to be expected from the book looks to me One world religion. NWO.
Every belief system that change for the whims of the people is exactly oposite to rationality, and is 100% pagan magic/tradition based. Yes tradition are usualy sustainable. This language is terribly confusing…. apriori based on apriori based on brainwashing.
Sects that Support isolation and division? It is a language of ROME!!!!! It is so awfullllll
Cant you see they are aiming all of their book towards the need of NWO and one world religion? They are teasing you.
Sociologicaly it means ability to adapt. Yeah….. Rome is a master of adaptation…. Cant you see already the language of how Rome is awesome using words that means NOTHING!
So. He is implying that we are to make a rome civilisation – sociologically.
While people give gods etc etc…. You are to do that unconciously in the name of unknown principles…. And you are to be kept in the dark.
New period of reason? Its like a lack of reasoning.
- To insure the changes they need to guaranteed politicaly. I whole heartly agree that the laws need to insure things. But those laws cannot be perfect. Law need to fit people becuase the best law for the not so best people would not be very good.
That is why the world looks like it looks the laws are designed for the bad people. I know that TZM has some point in saying that how the society looks varies from one to another. But i think they are making up the causality. I think the causalities are exactly other way around.
I agree whoheartly that the wicked government for the wicked people are going to make more problems than a good. So here I can agree with somewhat liberal possition. But unlike the TZM I am aware that my points of view are very biblical. I am against the cainite logic. The cainite logic had made most of the problems on the world it had even created a man made civilisation based on the pronciples of the Zeitgeist.
There are many other ways that it could be that its not based on legitimastion.
Machiavelli in his work prince is very valuable book to teach every ligitimist that they are deeply wrong about the power. In his book machiavelli states that the only thing to insure power is to not have the enemies, and to maintain the ilussion of improvement. That is all. That is the most sad fact of the reality of human being lives. It is just the way it was. The things that happen does not have to be as the narrative of progress suggest – have some sense. Most of things does not have sense only because there is how people nowadays even in academical circle says – there is no alternative, and they maintain the illusion of power.
That is the scientific governing and dystopia we have in the current world. Science is not what people claim it to be. The political science of Machiavelii is deadly efficient to this day.
If only not the religious fervout that the authors of TZM so much despise we would still be living in some political despotisms that is scientifically based.
Wow he said that something is based on assumptions that are outdated and he uses the enlightment proven to not be true assumptions that were tried to be ressurected by possitivism. Wow…. That is what I call delusion.
So what that the monetary system is inefficient? That inefficiency made many people very powerful. It is all about power and transfer of power. He implies that the people in power are so inept and inefficient. They are very efficient in what they do. They want power and that is what they get. He would make the world that they would not want power? Ha… interesting. That would obviously not end peacefully as he think it would. It would be bloody powergrabbing.
How is he going to prevent that? Silly… It is very in like with statistics and stochastics – power change ending in blood, a lot of blood. So what scientific observations are he talking about? Is he deluded?
And again argumentum ad religiom – if that logical fallacy would not exist Tzm should invent it. Because religion makes us backward it is the reason people are bad. Yeah well… there were a lot of atheists that were no better either. It is soooooo ignorant. I dont even know how to comment that
Church in the middle ages was influenced fully by the roman civilisation, the same civilisation that adapt and value stability and traditions that are „sustainable”. Those were and are the same value as the TZM have.
Seeing problems when they are not there is implying the values of neurotic society. He calls everything a problem. Not perfect transport, not perfect computer etc.
Is TZM trying to make extremely unhappy society? Or is society is to not only see problems everywhere, but as well deny that it see problem as problems?
It is now common knowledge that crime would not occur at certain conditions? Yes. Those conditions are certainity, non neurotics and not envy of better transportation for example. The mormon society is crimeless basicly, but I hope he is not meaning mormon society as it is 100% opposed to TZM…
Just because putting people in prison is not a solution – that does not make TZM viable…. Again and again and again he uses roman civilisation way of thinking. In this case he uses the saying tertium non datur. Why? There could be as well many solutions that are religious as well.
The root cause is able to be assumed apriori based on TZM principles and they could not be assumed based on the sin? Sin leading to the sin is a lot more aposteriori then saying that optimal situation of life leads to no crime. First is a lot more documented.
As in the ancient rome, in the holy roman empire in the middle ages, as it is now with the tries of ressurecting the old roman empire, so it would be in the TZM system that is based on the rome and its NWO.
That is what a sociology that is science says – have the same civilisation and you reproduce its results. The civilisation studies have another observation as well. Every civilisation have each own religion, and it is the religion that defines civilisation. Protestant civilisation that made the current world as it is, is opossed to the view of the TZM and NWO, that represent the romanism in civilisation values.
I cant help myself not to see the TZM mindlocked on TZM. Maybe wrongly.
Social retardation…. Why is he socially retarded taking retarded far away in time the enlightement/possitivism point of view?
Prima facie – the popularity of the TZM before investigation says it is a prima facie by all means.
It is a Comte possitivism put on the head this sentence – social system blablabla page 29. Actual science is not so optimistic about it.
I will not comment shared access because it is not yet intelligible. We will coment it later. So ok do not prima facie, lets at least secundo facie
I agree with Zeitgeist thinking people are governed by profit notion is stupid. They say it so much strangely vague… Can they make things clear? I guess no because you need to remember the movement is to destroy protestant civilisation. Everything would make much more sense seeing that in the picture.
I agree that things does not need to be confiscated to be seized. For example a village under the feudalism. Or the rights to collect taxes or rent. Saying people will agree into something is silly without coercion, religion, same values. The history proves that the less homogenetic society is in its faith the bigger coercion is necessary. So in other words – he would need a world religion to not coerce people. That is what political science says.
Psychology he defined as logical fallacies. I hope the scientocracy of the TZM would not be so sloppy with defining the terms.
The failure of possitivism and neopossitivism proved you cannot judge outside of yourself and outside of psychology, because a psychology is a part of the judgement.
Align with natural dynamic. …. wow gaia-minerwa language. Lol page 33
Patriotism as a sefgoverning is nothing wrong. Most of the time patriotism or nationalism is a sign of idolatry of symbols – that is when it begin to become a pathology. One should distinguish one from another or he could not judge others as being unflexible. Hypocrite.
But it is not a coincidence that he divide society into the right and the left. It is an old roman rule – to divide and to rule the divided. By the moment he had not declared being in the either wing of the same bird, he could be not viewed as a person seeking divisions. Now you can see – he does.
For example one can see things as good selfgoverning and other can see the same thing with pejorative temrs
Largest system is to be attained? Why? Maybe it will be explained…….
b) talking about fascism
No. Not everyone competes with eachother in the current world. The competition happens when it is allowed to happen. It is not a driving force of this society. The world is consolidating and corporating so that is a wrong observation on the part of NWO ehmmm i mean TZM
corporatism is fascism and that is the rule of this game we play
fascism is very hipocritical system – it means no competition for some and a deadly finishing competition for the rest. It is understandable that people that are a victims of this deadly and ihuman competition are against it. It is the same system as in rome – it was a favouritism.
It is no wonder that one would be popular as TZM is if one would say – everyone should be corporated and able to be favoured. That is how Ceasar was deified. Sorry that is impossible. There is no prove in the history that fascism aka corporatism can work without capitalistic overfinancialised heavy indebted and determined class of poor people. But the dreaming and one religion in the new rome I mean TZM would be necessary.
c) missunderstaning causality
Yes crime is sociologicaly preventable to some statistical degree – by making a society having the same values…. The society TZM is against. WTF!
Human deprivation? We were never more rich most of the time. It is not a matter of economy. It is a matter of sin in my opinion, that people are less and less happy. But what do I know. I only use observations, statistical data, and by seeing the commentaries of the people themselves. I do not use the fancy gibberish words that could mean anything.
Rich want poor to miserable. He just does not get it. They have joy from it ok? It makes them all fusy inside. People could be monsters ok? What is he going to do with monsters? Assume apriori and call it scientific – that they are not there?
Thats what he says is just putting a Rosseu on his head by saying that it was like people are good, it was just rational of them to be evil. And it was systemic evil as long as someone had not the thing he wanted. What if someones apettite was not satisfied by the things he assumed that should satisfy him? According to TZM he should insanely try the same thing again and again. If that is not deluded I dont know what is.
d) reformation and counter reformation values
The worst with what he says is that it is somewhat true. Ofcourse he is. The more wrong you do the worst and worst you become, but values and rules are preventing people from becoming worse and worse and not the other way around. If the law allows evil the evil will grow exponentially – that is the protestant civilisation that sadly is retreating to the romanism civilisation that TZM represents.
Rome had stolen everything, not understand, make into its own and says – I have made it, while it is incapable of creativity. That is the same with TZM – it shows what it is.
TZM misrepresent the same way the adam smith as the fascists running the world does. The fascists say that A. Smith was a proponent of competition. No. He was a proponent of non-coercion as the economic system of the world had been constructed that, the people are coerced already.
To self-interest or to not self-interest. TZM assumes the pseudoliberal position that it is the ordinary people that make the world. No. And it was not the position of A. Smith. His position was – do not make thing worse.
It is the power and coercion that shape the world, especially the law or the evil deeds and the world of politic. TZM is saying exactly the same as the corporate rich noncompetetive society that have based its international wealth in financial sectors connected to rome.
Yes. The scare of war was always the reason to make imperialistic big empires. They always fall because of different civilisations was within the empire. TZM seems to know that. That is why they advocate the most agressive civilisation – romanism.
Human nature, traditional value and intuitive view on history – that is not properly scientificly indentified by the majority of the social scientistst. That is looong way to make a decisive statement about it all without being the errournous neo-possitivists.
So…. the argumnent at the page 40 in the begining shows it is a roman civilisation criticising the proven notion of A. Smith of the protestant civilisation of not making things worse by additional coercion. They call the protestant religiously inclined while romanism is as well hipocritically only less known by them.
People arguing about the human nature being blablabla are being the same romaniside as the TZM. A. Smith and other protestant economician and thinkers was not having such an idea, little less about traditional values that was for them catholicism and tyranny.
Straw man after the straw man after the straw man. The name of the game is fascism and corporatism in the current world and not capitalism. I dont even know what a capitalism to be exact is. It does not exist in my opinion.
f) even other influences
Human society is no different if the intention is integration and optimisation. Now they are even older in their tradition than the Rome. They are Babilonian here. And they talk about tradition…. How debasedly hipocritical…… „mechanistic schematic” Those are the tyranny of babilonian coercion that have a traditions older than 6000 years old.
What it have to do with MODERN FFS scientific method? Obviously nothing………
As a sociologist I know the using word culture is very popular because using that word you can make any point you want. Anything you would want. Totally useless to explain anything.
I have seen that people that are somewhat involved with the World Bank love the idea of conditioning people – free slaves anyone? Here ye here ye… still warm.
Fascistic society have created all the troubles of the world especially in the psyche, and I suppose to believe that the fascistic scientific autocracy like it is in the modern corporation is suppose to seal the deal? No thanks.
e) how they would apply it?
If not, then how is he going to apply the so called scientific way of management – fordism if not by a corporatism?
Aldous Huxley would recognize all that is written in this fragment as the part of his book Brave New World. It sounds awfully like NWO.
Public Health is as a whole. Wow. The WHO have not enough power over the public health? Are not the vaccines are for the „public health”, but clearly for the corporate needs. Page 46
Why not just educate people about the health and not misinform them? Clearly… the Tzm does not see the disinformation around us? Wow……….
It is just romanism to a FULL SCALE! Instead of not doing evil they wish to combat it……. Wow… Trully romanish dystopian society. (Kainite)
f) wrong causualities
Why wouldnt they see the inequality as a result of unhappiness and not the other way around? Why not? Happy people do not need much money. Why assume one position? That does not look scientific to me at all.
Indian boys are specific. IQ is meassuring the heuristic intelligence and that is actually depending on the self-evaluation. One is faster to judge if one is percieved to be greater. That does not mean that the judgement is better – it is easier to make.
The school conditioniong have the most influence of our self evaluation and conditioning to the shame. So it is no wonder that people are easily shamed – they are conditioned to do so. The rich kids have no such a problem, and that is why fascist want to control the society – to appear better because others are worse in comparison. It will be so because evil breeds evil.
f) ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT EXPOSED
They said the thing defined them. They are not statist nor lesseir fair but something else. Yeah it is called a fascism corporatism or also called autoritarism.
The neofordism in the making.
The rethoric is like Hilters – you poor are the exploited – we will show you enemies. Destroy them and we will make you rich.
d) The current monetary system is far from perfect. But the TZM sees the problem backwards. The issue of interest, growth and money grabbing. All of those issues had defined why the catholics societies was poor and protestant were rich. Because the second was a lot more fluid and the second was rigid.
The Adam Smith that the author of TZM and as well most of the current world misrepresent states that the less interest or what he called rent the society is burdened with the more productive it is. The problem with the Tzm is that it takes everything that the establishment says as a fact uncritically. The TZM thinks they are saying things rationally based on the current circumstances. Zeitgeist assumes that the actors of the political and scientific scenes are good people they are only lack the incentive to be better/ Those are all a statements based on a lot of faith on their authority. That is why the movie is succesful it adovacates what people want to believe. People want to believe that there are malignity, that people are forced to be that or this, because they do not know better. TZM misrepresent grossly what the majority of people thinks. Majority of people are ligitimists just like TZM. They are not optionalist. The percent of viting people suggest that. But TZM forgets that all of those political views are mostly represented by faith. They believe it is that way or another oly because it fits their narrative it is just too bad that it does not fit the reality.
a) fallacies of two choices – the prisoner dillema. And false solution out of it.
The state was not existant in 17th century…. It was a monarchy or a rather coalition of the free cities a robbers and in some country the black mailers aka church.
Markets need to be made so this one was made as well. There was no wording a free market in the A. Smith work. He knew the markets was made.
And I have to agree here with the Zeitgeist. The markets are not something written in stone. They have to be made and they do not make themselves, there are market makers. If TZM would call it like so. I could agree. But they do not. They claim that there is some magical progress of evolution that is their God. The Jesuits tells exactly 100% the same things!
Find the source
It is not a fusion between free market and the state. Because noone ever wrote about that. That is the further misinterpretation. Everybody in that period knew the markets were created,
The reason one could know that it was a common knowledge later on forgotten was because the science was called economical politique. Politique is something that is done, made hence the economy in the time of mercantilism was made by a politique.
Thats the fallacy of right and left wing political fascistic bird is that both of them talk about something that was not, is not and never will be – markets separated from the market makers – usualy the state and banks, and huge conglomerates mainly corporations.
The point of A. Smith was that the markets are not needed to be coerced because the markets themselves are the coercion and it is the state that is the protector of the markets. Noone outside of crazy libertarians are not claiming that markets can exist without the state.
That is a complete strawman. Or a rather one crazy people tells that other crazy people are crazy. They are. And?
The market presets the property. The property not valueable to the markets are not important. So it is the marketmakers and setters that are everything and not the other way around.
Capitalists are the class of the market setters. The Zeitgeist implies that they are rich because of their previous riches. That was not the case mostly. They are rich because they rig the game, and not rig the game because they were rich.
The causality of the movement is put on its head and gives a mockery of psuedoscience.
b) The true face of TZM legitimising corporatis\m – using the words of Mussolini fascism
The so called free market is a part of corporatism in the current model that gives the illusion of rationality. TZM refrain to that myth legitimising it. The only thing that pseudorationality is doing is to give a space to deal with personal agression and frustration so that it will not be set against the market makers and corporate owners.
c) true distinction protestantism vs catholicism
The fruits of someones labour are his in the Bible. The locke was actually only stating the protestant view of the classical Biblical view. It is the prostant civilisation that makes the society, and not the society that makes the civilisation.
The medieval age was poor because of a thievery of aristocrats that could not be stopped, so saying that someone might keep the fruits of his labour in protestant civilisation is the only reason why the author of TZM could ever talk about property, and use the technology he uses to write his book. Otherwise it is safe to assume it would be impossible. And yet he argues against the protestant civilisation – that is deluded.
Ofcourse people are not only incentivise by the money. Actually A. Smith would say that anyone doing that would be considered an utterly mad.
But that is the way romanism sees the protestant civilisation – as they would want it do be, and not what it says.
Maybe it is some that consider A. Smith as the father of modern economics, but he is surely a father that was used by counterreformation to tell what he said, and that we he had never ever said. There are two A. Smith. The real one that is an agent of the reformation and his false counterpart that is the basis of untrue statetements that he had never said in the jesuitical teachings against teachings.
d) poor state of the economical sciences and what untruths are taugh
So it is the start of the false teachings of the economy. To know if that is true you should look at the fruits of their labour. When any economist says their predictions – none of it come true, its exactly the opposite that is true.
The invisible hand was only used once in the book wealth of nation and it was about not coercing people ok? The people that had little more were and are not market makers ok? The really rich people were and are.
It is all lies about the Adam Smith that TZM conciously or not reproduce. He was also 100% opposite to the market makers and setters aka landlords.
Smith was just stating the facts. He was not postulating what should be with the markets being in accordance with the rich. To the contrary he was vividly against the land lords.
e) lies leading to falsenessof malthus used today even if they are totally not true.
TZM have a lot to do with Malthus they are both using the same words. Law of nature that are proven to not be the case. Markets have nothing to do with nature it is quite the opposite – it is fully artiificial construct. Not understanding that will take you to the cocoland.
The most important lie of the book is that reformation Locke and Smith is the same as the later Immitation of Smith and Malthus. The later is always proven wrong the first ones are always proven right.
Ricardo was who? Some premarxist? I firstly hear about him. The funny thing is that if someone disagree with with A. Smith wrote he must be right, because he assume that the disagreement is always a good thing – it is the spirit of Jesebel.
So it is a person that further the myth of unreal A.Smith and sets the territory for the Marx. Because what he says there – I am sorry makes no sense….
f) natural laws as with malthus as with baptist are not true as with every other possitivists
He gives the people that try to make science out of the economy. He seems to suggest that using the works of baptist that the economical „science” have anything to do with any natural law although maltthus proved and many other economists it is all not true.
Markets are were and will be artificial and never „natural”…. It is a roman folly… It is a reification of greed and covetedness…. And other vises and call them „rational”. There will always be wants, not just needs. It is unscientific to suggest otherwise.
The wants are possibly to be influenced – by the civilisation. They are scarcely material.
g) wrong data leads to wrong conclusions
He had said that it is in defence of capitalism today the unsatisfied need. It is a corporatism today – it is all neoroman system. It is not what he describes like a traw man.
The unsatisfied wants are true – they are self fulfilling prophecy for everyone that believe it – it is like an addiction. Addiction based on the evilness in the civilisation and its values that need to be addressed.
I will not comment the utilitarians – I already somewhat did – it is all proven wrong… and it is impossible to say the wants are unable to exist or to be satisfied. They are not because most of them are unsatisfiable concepts based on pure sin.
It is all just a word play of left and right and nonesense totally of the counterreformation word games that was all proven to be nonrelevant or even wrong.
From page 95 onwards
the worthless division creating neurosis? Yes the counterreformation is great at creating the neurosis not only in this in everything else. They are the masters of fear.
h) wrong analysis of facts that some were as old as Babylon
Cycles are because of the interest. Without interest there are no cycles needed. They are the way the market makers want. That is not in no way and will not be „natural law” or anything of sort.
i) obsolesence is the solution of the problem of interest
Obsolesense is part of the market makers – they want it that way. Because they can. Make them do the otherwise………….. Are they suggesting there is no ruling powers? That those powers would be idle? That it alls takes naturally? And he says something about science?
j) Incorporation exclusive clubs vs inclusive society
Ofcourse giving someone what he asked would be efficient – that is what the Bible and especially New Testiment is saying. And that is the way it is now in the corporations and state and corporate relationship. We live in a corporate world and fake competition are for the uncorporated. It is not the world that zeitgeist describes.
I am afraid the zeitgeist movement is a way to incorporate people to the papal system.
105 labour for income.
Efficiency of markets… but to who? Why the market makers ought to make it efficient to the ones they want to be their slaves? Why? Becuase some book and economist said so? Roman hipocrisy.
Ofcourse things can be more efficient. But efficient for whoom? Slave owners?
There are also some things that I wholeheartly disagree with.
One of it is that the TZM ideas are a new ones
Because there was a many positivists point of view, or neopositivist, or in other ways enlightement idea based. If TZM like it or not we are living in of such a model, but for their dusgust it is a dystopia, and they would want an utopia. The other model than dystopia for me personally is impossible. Ok someone can say – we can strife to better ones. That is why most people today love the word reform. We are all in our hearts reforimsts like tZM are. That is why it had sucha a strong appeal but that is the whole problem with the current world.
Second is that it is doable
The civilisations are governend mostly by faith and not by circumstances. For TZM it is like some kind of computer game. The life is not so.
Third that it is to be done peacefully.
The power matters mostly came down to force in the current world because it is the basis of power in the current model. There are only two ways to have power over people – to have the same faith in something or to coerce them. There is no other way. So to insure
Those third thing I think make the ideas of the movie a frustrating factor that can only make society more divisive and prone to conflicts.
In addition to that the TZM grossly caricaturised the science by making things said to be scientific – a scientific.
Diagnosis 8 – I can give TZM the lowest common denominator – manipulation of power grabbers like Machiavelli wrote and the Qui regio Eios Religio. It is all about the try to make one world religion.
Create – For a world to percieve the need of. It will never happen. So there you go. The rest is self delusion.
He says the world have no shortage and yet he want to build houses and cities according to economic not to have shortages… eeeeeeee… ok…
Is it the antichristical – ignorance will make you free? Seems like they say that by euphimisms.
If monetary system is based on any system it is a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery old system.
This deluded person does not know what rationality means………
It is the Marxist retorhic 100% of their capitalism ascedance. I will not comment for now on. Just point that out.
Smith is protestant civilisation and Locke a little bit truning to the romanism.
Te notatki sa na granicy.
Malthus even further. The effect was the fascisation – romanisation of Europe.
That is a proper analyse of the civilisation aspect of europe.
The Smith was writing that each period of time needs his own philosopher so he was clearly not stating that what was written in NWO i mean TZM.
Malthus was educated by the jesuits and continued his whole process of education by and to jesuits. He is as catholic as one could get. Why is that important? It becomes extremely important with what I had already wrote. I had written that there was a constant turning the europe from the civilisation of the protest to the civilisation of romanism. So the work of Malthus was a huge step towards the NWO.
Ofcourse Malthuses work are despiteful, and TZM tries to give it the picture of religiousity. Ofcourse it have it – but its pute catholiicism. Until today the catholic church tries to give protestant and for the jew a ploters that want to kill you and depopulate the earth. They have to do that because the civilisation of protestant is very prosperoous and much more happy. So they have devised a difference, that is not true is that catholics are poor because they have to afford for all those children and all those charity and normal life without being a childless money grabbers how they picture protestants. That is quite not true of an image there. But this tactic answers the fears and wants of the catholic population.
Not enough „changes” and „evolution” language and an ephasize to „terms” and that are not used in normal language, and especially the words that people love – a reform.
He accuse of someone of self referring frame of refference? OMG when you use a evolution language? That is clearly a demonical language.
The engine might not be outdated or anything but the reader as much as the whole society have their presupposition – so who cares when reading this book? They should.
From 17th century onwards being called a middle ages? Wow…. What happened in 16th century that influenced the 17th century reality and way of thinking. The reformation. So what he is criticising here when he have picked the reformation economists and authors, and later the people like Malthus that made a teaching against the teaching of the jesuitic origins.
Even if the zeitgeist as the force of progress should embrace this times of the reformation, as they clearly hate the word feudalism that the reformation succesfully abolished.
Two people that produce and those that gain. Why not call the third group that do both, and forth group that do partially, and countless other cathegories. To simplify and to make reformists look stupid. Many times it was as well those that produced they gained…. That is really insincere to say the otherwise.
Human needs and the human wants are not the same. True. But nothing implies that society can control the wants of the society. It is probably the wants of the society that shape the society. It is the belief system that shape the wants. It is not mere trash that TZM seems to see it. Their religion and belief would as well create the wants. It is unscientific to suggest the otherwise.
Actually that is my main argument against the TZM they are the set of beliefs that are against beliefs it is the epithomy of every utopia – they want to cut down the branch on what they sit. Or lift themselves by their belt. And their beliefs as I have said are a romanism, and what they would recreate is the same thing that Hitler wanted – A new Roman Empire.
Mercantilism a transitional stage? Something is or is not a feudalism… How someone claiming for a scientific society can not know that? Clearly the one that has nothing to do with any science but claim to be one.
Feudalism was mostly agrarian. From 9th to 16th as he said it had not change at all? The magical date of 1500 changed all? Oh please……….
Four wheels wagon was nothing…. mostly the transport was by water. That is ignorance… complete ignorance.
There were a lot of changes in those days. A lot of changes, but most of all it was the less coercion because of the weaponry. The lords could not just take away everything to themselves because of the crossbows and handgun.
The most important change was that because of the pike, handgun and crossbow, protestant civilisation could occur and get out of the stupidity of the romanism. Why would anyone gather anything if they would lose everything? They would rather enjoy their time and get drunk, at least they had the experience to tell someone. THAT IS THE REALITY. The protestant civilisation could not occur.