Want to change the world? Stop buying shit. Become self sufficient.

First you have to 'enlighten' enough people so we can all be sufficient. Second off iff you want to start being self sufficient solo-style you need money to invest in that (unless you want to stop using technology). Becoming a treehugger won't help you spread the word, the majority has to realise it so we can be able to change,if you already realise change needs to be made..good spread the awareness even further

Want to buy shit? Stop changing the world. No one is self sufficient.

Edit: Which one of my eight downvotes has lived in a village in a 3rd world country? I am gonna guess none. I did for 3 years. No electricity, no running water, no phones, 30 miles from the nearest road. Even there life would be truly desperate w/o clothes, medicine, building materials, farming equipment, etc. from the modern world. I also spent most of my childhood in a rural setting around ranchers and farmers.

I poked fun at glasseyed86's comment because it is hopelessly naive, cliche and unexperienced. I know it comes from good intentions. But just realize we need each other and hoping that society breaks down so we can get back to nature will be disastrous for everyone.

[deleted]

lol the Movement is just an device to spread the awareness, they won't ask you to kill yourself lolz, you are bound to nothing they say, only too what you believe

Loved it.

I went to a show in Winston Salem NC, several older people were there who looked very out of place. After the show they turned out to be Peters (the director) family (mom dad brother and extended family) Great QA session After the film. The newest film really makes you think about how interconnected everything truly is. Want to change the world, invent a viable alternative to fossil fuels that can be implemented within the next 50 years.

Cannabis.

touché

What do you mean by the "new" Zeitgeist documentary? There are 2 so far - Zeitgeist, and Zeitgeist Addendum. What is the NAME of this movie?

Zeitgeist III - Moving Forward

http://www.wearechange.org/?p=5713

So much hate and ignorance

Sold out all over the place :)

I saw it, LOVED it.

I like the Venus Project but am really disappointed by the Zeitgeist movies. When I first saw it I found it to be very thought provoking and interesting, save for a few things that I could gloss over and still appreciate it's greater context. The problem came after that, as I thought about it more and started researching it to get a deeper understanding of it's material, which is presumably the point, to open doors and invite you look closer at the ideas presented.

I found that the films creators get a lot of stuff wrong and just seem to make other stuff up. It was pretty disappointing, especially given that it had introduced me to the Venus Project, which I found interesting, and was such a concise package I had hopes for it being a convenient and illustrative device for others I knew.

I wouldn't now recommend it to others except perhaps as a case study in the application of Bloomian (to coin a school) memetics.

[deleted]

is that you John?

I support a new world order, I'm Illuminati like that.

Centralize, collectivize and control. The Venus project frightens me beyond my wildest nightmares, and if that is the best humanity comes up with for a future model of society, I will gladly take the fiery wrath of armageddon and a nuke thank you very much!

The original zeitgeist documentary blew me away - that is until i started doing my own research into its claims. I urge you to do the research yourself, some of what they say is backed up by hard facts, some is based on the truth & some of their more compelling arguments were completely made up. It's amazing that with the internet these days that people would try & get away with making such claims.

which claims?

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

Also linked to below by someone else, but down voted for some stupid reason.

The christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.

Did Thomas Paine not write this?

I've seen the first two and I think they advocate something a bit too utopian commie for me. Nothing in there about the fact that capitalism would work just fine if we actually get the crook bankers/banking cartels in jail and depose out of control governments. The production is good on both films though and I can't help shake the feeling that they are funded by a PR firm from the banking sector because the basic message is "it's the systems fault, its broken, let's join hands and fix it and absolve those poor bankers who did what they could with the tools they had."

It is everything about how capitalism is NOT working no matter how you try to fix it. The whole point is about moving away from a monetary system. The idea that this would be funded by bankers is ridiculous.

its moonbeam not moonbeaver

Huh?

Amen

I've tried to watch this thing several times, but I just can't get past the first 20 minutes or so. It's stupifyingly boring.

You just pressed on an issue about why so many people are uneducated. Information is "boring". Reality TV is "entertaining"

Absolutely! I think they make it a point to lose some viewers at the start.

But this movie isn't very informative, it's just packaged to be entertaining to a set of people who aren't used to being marketed too. Don't be so quick to assume you're not just as able to be manipulated as "so many people".

I would really like to think that I'm not easily manipulated. I try hard to be objective in my opinions, and I think for the most part, I do a pretty good job of doing so. That being said, I haven't seen the movie so I can't really comment on it much further.

Google: Zeitgeist Venus Project

Misinformation - leading to a liberal/communist cult that has watched far too many SciFi movies.

It's so easy to be against things.

It's so easy to not give anything thought and follow what the media and government tell you, or is that what you meant?

No, what it meant is that it is easy to be a rebel. It's easy to be against everything to tear down what others have created, but it's much more difficult to be FOR something. Success at creating a new world order (as opposed to the shitty old world order) will only come about through creation. What we create may not be perfect, but treat those who try with some respect. At least they are trying to create something new, and that matters a lot more in the long run then distructive dismissivness.

Being a rebel is easy? I think there's several centuries of revolutionaries who'd like to have a word with you.

Yes, but the invisible subtext of the 'we' he speaks about are reddit users who are predominantly white and middle class. Sure there have been rebels throughout history who faced hardship. The gist I think he is getting at about tearing down is that in the information age it is very easy to yell "FAKE" or "PHOTOSHOP," in the metaphorical sense of course, whenever someone is brave enough to put themselves out and offer something new.

Being a rebel is easy, being a successful rebel of course is much more unlikely. But what is "success" for a rebel anyway? Total anarchy or the construction of a better new order? Although few rebels crash the existing systems, far fewer create better ways of living.

Whatever you say, I guess. I can see there's no using intelligent thought process with you.

"ub2 dum 2tk2" Dismissive because you have narrow expectations.

I've seen the first two and I think they advocate something a bit too utopian commie for me. Nothing in there about the fact that capitalism would work just fine if we actually get the crook bankers/banking cartels in jail and depose out of control governments. The production is good on both films though and I can't help shake the feeling that they are funded by a PR firm from the banking sector because the basic message is "it's the systems fault, its broken, let's join hands and fix it and absolve those poor bankers who did what they could with the tools they had."

I've seen the first two and I think they advocate something a bit too utopian commie for me. Nothing in there about the fact that capitalism would work just fine if we actually get the crook bankers/banking cartels in jail and depose out of control governments. The production is good on both films though and I can't help shake the feeling that they are funded by a PR firm from the banking sector because the basic message is "it's the systems fault, its broken, let's join hands and fix it and absolve those poor bankers who did what they could with the tools they had."

Fuck, why don't you post it 3 times.

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

Why was this down voted? It's highly relevant and informative.

it's highly biased and spews religious zealotism all over itself

I'd be fine if that were true, but no one seems willing actually refute it. I've searched for counter points and found none and I've looked at the sourced material, it seems correctly attributed. It doesn't seem to me that the author is religious, but if they are then it does seem like that matters.

What seems biased is that no one will challenge it yet links to it are being down voted. I'd settle for a link that offers a different perspective, but even that seems to be too much.

How many times do we have to tell people that the first movie has nothing to do with the movement itself?

I don't disagree with the movement, which includes the Venus Project, correct? I'm only talking about the movies. The link above starts with the first movie and moves to the second and third as well.

I sympathize with the sentiment that you shouldn't have to continuously defend something that's already been covered but I can't find anything that does defend the movie in the first place. While it's reasonable to dismiss refuted criticisms, it feels apologist to dismiss criticism with out having ever addressed it in the first place.

Yes, the movement is the activist arm of the Venus Project.

The movies are what catalysed the movement into existence. The first movie being more of a 'rant' or 'wake-up-call' if you will - and having essentially nothing to do with the movement.

I consider all three movies fairly defended, there are definitely things that should be elaborated on, and in the first one - downright rewritten - but all in all, they do a good job of 'waking up' people.

:) That's really all.

Want to buy shit? Stop changing the world. No one is self sufficient.

Edit: Which one of my eight downvotes has lived in a village in a 3rd world country? I am gonna guess none. I did for 3 years. No electricity, no running water, no phones, 30 miles from the nearest road. Even there life would be truly desperate w/o clothes, medicine, building materials, farming equipment, etc. from the modern world. I also spent most of my childhood in a rural setting around ranchers and farmers.

I poked fun at glasseyed86's comment because it is hopelessly naive, cliche and unexperienced. I know it comes from good intentions. But just realize we need each other and hoping that society breaks down so we can get back to nature will be disastrous for everyone.

First you have to 'enlighten' enough people so we can all be sufficient. Second off iff you want to start being self sufficient solo-style you need money to invest in that (unless you want to stop using technology). Becoming a treehugger won't help you spread the word, the majority has to realise it so we can be able to change,if you already realise change needs to be made..good spread the awareness even further