the economy and oil.

to dotoar: the post before this one was something i should have posted as an edit in the post before that, which, at some length tackled the issues you presented.

i'm writing here now because the lengthy post showed up at the end of page 9 while what should have been an edit started off page 10, and it got me thinking that you probably only saw the edit post. if so, just know that i didn't try to escape from your argument.

I hade all but forgot about this thread, but better late than never. (Perhaps)

Here we go. Anyone not realizing what the enlightened Zetigeisters have seen is narrow-minded and fooled by the conspiracy. Now, let me ask you: What would it take for you to be convinced that you're wrong? That is, what phenomenom would have to occur in order to falsify the notion of a world-wide conspiracy of the kind you're describing?

Of course there isn't, because there is no such thing as an 'elite'. If you claim there is, please do consider my previous question.

I am well aware of the fluoride myth. Do you have any scientific sources to back up your statement? Are you equally convinced of other conspiracy myths such as 'chemtrails' and the 'fake moon landing'?

Why would they start a revolution? And why would the university want them to? Are you proposing violence?

So what you're saying is that the richest people in the world are insane because of the divide between the rich and the poor? What possible corrolation is there between these two statements? Are you even enough acquainted with these, the richest people of the world, in order to make a mental judgement of them? Bill Gates is quite rich, and has donated quite a bit of his fortune to various causes, if that's what you consider insane.

As for the divide between the rich and the poor: That's simply not interesting at all to talk about, since even the poorest part of the world today is wealthier than they were in the past. If you want to indulge in pure facts, do visit Gapminder .

Yes, you just found someone who thinks war (i.e. destruction) is bad for business.

As usual, another myth until proven otherwise.

...and yet another.

Eastern Germany, as part of the communist regime, naturally resorted to a strictly planned economy, and Trabant was the best thing they could come up with car-wise. Those desperate enough to actually buy one had to wait 10 years to get it.

I.e., you consider every book not agreeing with your own view to be false and indoctrinating. How surprising. Let me remind you of my previous question: What would it take for you to be convinced that you're wrong?

The people would do it? Just like on today's free market? Now we're getting somewhere! Why are you presuming I'm unimaginative and non-loving just because I dont buy the mythology of Zeitgeist? I value peace, love and freedom as much as the next guy but I'm not that naive and otherworldly that I think that it all will work without incentives. If there is incentives to create value instead of destroying it, then value will be created, and it has been proven again and again throughout the history (mainly the past 200 years).

Now, since you once again didn't answer my question: How exactly, in practice, would the society work with all the providing of necessities and whatever it is that people would demand, if there is no reward for it? Who would decide what to build and produce? Where would it be built and produced? Why do you wanna take away value? Do you even know what I mean when I say value? Money is not value, it's a measure of expected value, and that's a completely different thing. So, why do you wanna take away the means by which we most effectively can measure our expected gain in value? Are you proposing barter? And if so, how can I be sure that I can trade my songs (the value I create) for food (the value I desire) at all times?

Now, if you seriously want me to consider this utopia (dystopia), then I want facts and figures about what's wrong with this world - with sources - and how it should work - with sources - and not just some stoned mind's close-minded bantering about "how nice it would be if...".

I never said it was. (Apart from the paper/metal it's carved in).

The oil issue has been discussed above. The economy on the other hand, is indeed in its doldrums. The reason is roughly explained in the documentary I linked to above. (State intervention, that is).

i honestly couldn't care less if you agree with me. if you'd like me to list off all the sources that i've crossed in finding the substance behind my outlook, you're crazy. and if you think my purpose here is to be the provider of that information, then you're really crazy. the last thing i want to waste my time with is compensating for someone else's lazy approach to reading between the lines. yes. i want you to consider what your indoctrinated mind is currently calling "this utopia." so go FIND the facts and figures... YOURSELF. don't rely on someone else to light a fire under your ass. or, you can simply assume you know what's up and continue verbally flogging people for thinking differently.

You're begging the question, and still have the nerve to call me indoctrinated. We're through.

i'd like to know what question you're talking about, and also how it is so that someone thinking about a complete alternative outlook on the way the world works is indoctrinated.

nobody dumps me!

Begging the question as in assuming what you set out to prove. You're accusing me of being indoctrinated just because I don't buy the theories you and/or the Zeitgeist movement throw around, and that is simply because you're in turn indoctrinated by those very theories. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've got a strong suspicion that if I was to tell you that I've indeed read about the movement and all the things it concludes about the state of the world today, and still dismiss it as being plain wrong, you would persist in that I'm close-minded, indoctrinated and all that. That is why I will ask you again this fundamental question: What would have to occur, in any selected area that the Zeitgeist theorists set out to explain, that would make you change your mind or even reconsider your notion of the state of the world? Please answer that question and I will at least try to take you seriously.

it would have to be history. i mean that it would have to be tried, and tested. similar to the way we test things today, except when we test things today and see that they don't work, we just keep doing them anyway.

EDIT: as far as me being indoctrinated goes, it's pretty hard to be indoctrinated when you're trying to weigh new ideas against old ones. i don't believe any of this will work. sure, i can play devil's advocate all i want, but i have as many doubts as the next guy. it's just that i don't let that get in the way. if i did, i'd just make lots of money, burn lots of gas, flush perfectly clean water down my toilet along with my personal organic waste and not think twice about it, convince myself that my thirty dollars a month is going to save a child in africa and it suffices for 'doing my part...' just because i don't believe it will work, doesn't mean i believe it (or one of many imaginable permutations of it) won't work.

if you call seeing the world as falling short of its occupants' potential indoctrinated, then this conversation is purely semantics, which i am not interested in.

when i use the word 'indoctrinated' to describe someone else's perspective it is because i can see clearly that they are quite alright with being bonded on a molecular level to the ways of the past. if you were to - instead of chopping my notions down like dead lumber - throw some other ideas out there, i would be far less apt to not only call you indoctrinated, but think you that way as well.

Let's not get stuck on the word 'indoctrination', and I ask you, kindly this time, not to call me indoctrinated just because I don't buy the Zeitgeist theories. I have put forth several arguments as for why already (which you by the way haven't even tried to counter).

No, that's not what I asked for. I'm not adressing the question of wether or not the Zeitgeist utopia would work (it could work theoretically and all else equal, but based on what I once again have noted in previous entries, I don't believe it would, not least considering the presumtions about the state of the world today as well as the fact that noone seems really bothered with how it would work). I was, and am, adressing the issues that the Zeitgeist theories claim to have observed in the world today.

being that it sounds like you are asking me to be very specific about some things, i would like you to be more specific about which issues the zeitsters have claimed to observe in the world today. i'm really not trying to give you a run-around, it's just that i've already made many posts pertaining to a lot of different things, and i work hard and i'm busy and i don't want to spend too much time reviewing the entirety of this thread nor providing a full-length synopsis of the films and the content. i would like to try and have you see this alternatively, but i do have a life and quite frankly i'm not about to make it my mission to educate people on a one on one basis in an effort as i see being only to get people thinking creatively and globally.

i don't want people to join the movement. i'm not even part of it. but i do believe drastic change is needed. arguing it out over the internet is starting to feel "passe," in that redundant sort of way.

You're displaying an ignorance of history. Excepting societies living on the fringes, if you contrast gatherer-hunter groups in a given region to stratified societies in the same region, it becomes patently obvious resource distribution is less meritocratic and more democratic for the gatherer-hunters than the stratified societies, even though stratified societies produce more.

That being stated, it's no accident that any and every single society which has moved beyond gatherer-hunter has adopted work specialization and the social & economic stratification which accompanies it.