I'm not sure what to make of this video, really. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

In Syria, Bahrain, Libya, and Iran, the mere act of protesting was declared illegal. IIRC, in all four of those countries, violence was the only police response to protests, and in all four countries it escalated to police/military/paramilitary forces firing bullets at protesters.

That's not happening here.

In Egypt, the police didn't really crack down on the protests themselves. There were attempts to use agents provocateur to provoke violence to give the police some cause to shut down the protests, but that never worked. There were some touch and go moments when it seemed that the police were going to try to storm Tahrir square to forcibly end the protest, but that never happened (largely because the military stepped in and made sure that didn't happen). The result of the protests and accompanying strikes ended up toppling the Mubarak regime.

In America, things are a bit different. People who want to uphold the status quo want the protests ignored, and they know that violence and arrests will only help the protesters in the long run. So the OWS people have had to resort to a little provocation of their own. It's noble and self-sacrificing that they're doing so, and it does make the police look bad when they arrest people for innocuous sounding things (like directly protesting in on the steps of the NYSE itself, or blocking a bridge), but they're intentionally doing so to draw attention. It's called civil disobedience.

So really, I'm left a bit confused by the video. The title of the video is "I'm not moving", but spends a ton of time highlighting police violence at the protests here and abroad (and it's mostly abroad). When they finally show the guy who says he's not moving, they don't show him getting arrested or beaten, they just hear him begging to get arrested, and seemingly being ignored.

So is the point "I have a point to make that I'm willing to get arrested for" (i.e. "I'm Not Moving") or is the point "Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are hypocritical tyrants because the police arrest me when I intentionally try to get arrested to make a point."

You can't really have it both ways.

It would be interesting to know if she's ever worked on the sabbath before. Also, may I assume that her work attire is made entirely of the same material? Oh, and may I also assume that she actually had 5 children but sacrificed the first one?

Beware low hanging cherries, there christians be.

How many false arguments can one put in a post?

Protecting individual sovereignty is always the best solution and like I previously eluded to, sacrificing individual sovereignty to exist as a society is not only delusional thinking, but self-destructive.

God is a American.>> ^TheGenk:

There is no civilization that that has openly empraced homosexuality and has survived...
waves at Pat Robertson
Oh, hello there! This is Europe, we even gone so far and turned away from god, too. Then we have legal prostitution, even some countries where pot is legal or assisted suicide. But what really pisses off Jesus is our affordable health-care for all, how dare we get treatment from doctors instead of the traditional way of praying and sacrificing animals?! And guess what, we're still here.

What a douche...
(edit: more fun facts about europe for comical effect)

If by 'data' you mean 'bullshit', then I totally agree.

-In the article, it says that educators don't work as many hours as other professionals. What many people don't understand is that aside from the 6-7 hours spent in the classroom each day, much of the job is performed off the clock - duties like grading papers, making lesson plans, hosting study sessions, parent-teacher conferences, various meetings, extracurricular fund raisers and events, filling out report cards, ordering supplies, going to educator conferences, field trips, etc. They obviously did no research before hastily rushing out this weak rebuttal.

-In the article, it also makes the point that teachers earn about a third less than their private sector counterparts of similar education level. I'm not sure how they come to the conclusion that sacrificing a 3rd of your economic worth is not 'shitty'. It probably has something to do with them being a corporate propaganda outfit that wants to profit off of private schools.

Maybe it's time to upgrade your media sources, @chilaxe. You are way too smart to be reading this dishonest garbage.
>> ^chilaxe:

I hate to introduce data to otherwise awesome discussions but...
"Is Matt Damon right that teachers make a "shitty" salary? Short answer: No. Longer answer: Also no." http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/02/is-matt-damon-right-that-teach

I watched some of your video..I may finish it at some point. I have to give it credit, it's quite a sophisticated attack vehicle for atheism. It attempts to decontruct the mechanisms for faith but so far it has some glaring errors. In the video covering prayer in the deconstruction process, it has a fundemental misunderstanding of Gods omniscience and the purpose of prayer. While it is true that God knows our needs before we ask

Matthew 6:8

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

it isn't true that God has already decided a matter before we ask about it.

Genesis 18:17-25

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Now this is a special case, but Abraham negotiated with God and He decided what to do based on that negotiation. It is the same with prayer. The Lord may be set to do one thing, but may change His mind based on intercessory prayer done by one or several Christians. He may impart a blessing upon someone that normally wouldn't have received it if no one had asked about it.

Prayer is more than just asking for things, it is about communion and growth. Your friend made the mistake of making the Lord completely impersonal, by thinking he was just receiving commands from the master control. Ironically, he thought this was bringing him closer in his personal relationship with God when it was actually driving him apart. This is what happens when people think they know better than God.

1 Thessalonians 5:17

Pray without ceasing.

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

etc

I feel bad for him, specifically because of this scripture:


Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

It is quite shameful what he has done, and I can tell you there is more to this story than he is saying. It's not that I doubt the essential truth of his story, that he was once a devout Christian. That much was obvious to me the first time I heard him speak and looked in his eyes. There is just another spirit at work here which doesnt match the atheistic mindset. It's hard to say what his agenda is but it's not pro-atheist. It's pro-something else, but whatever it is, it's anti-christianity. The pretense of respect he is giving God is just a subterfuge..he doesn't have any respect for God what so ever..it's just to make the medicine go down smoother. The repetitive music is another clue to the disingenuousness of the presentation.

As for me, I don't fit any of his criteria. I was once just like you. Blind to the spirit, a strict materialistic, and suspicious of all religion and all supernatural claims. I rejected most of it as outright nonsense. I grew up that way and saw no reason to change.

One day God tapped me on the shoulder and let me know He was there. Your guess is as good as mine as to why. It's not as if I deserved to know. If I had to guess it would be that I was honestly interested in what the truth was, and I was willing to change my ways if necessary. It was more important for me to know the truth than to be right.

To convince myself God isn't there I would have to give myself a lobotomy. I would have to gouge my eyes out and pour superglue in my ears. I would have to do it deliberately, in spite of Him..meaning, I would have to deliberately deceive myself but I am fairly certain He wouldn't let me forget.

In reference to your scenerio, I think you make a mistake about Gods omniscience as well. God doesn't have absolute foreknowledge in this scenerio. For instance in Gen. 15:13-18 God predicts that the fourth generation of israelites will reach Cannan. But it is actually the fifth generation that reaches it because of disobedience. This means His prediction was based on probability.

For a being to truly have free will, their actions must to a certain extent be unpredictable to God. After God had Abraham prove his loyalty to Him by going through with sacrificing Issaic, God said "Now I know you love me". The verse suggests that until that moment, God didn't know that for sure.

This isn't to suggest God doesn't have foreknowledge at all. He obviously does, since He prophicies about things hundreds or thousands of years away and they come true. It is to suggest that God limited Himself for our sake. We have evidence of this in the person of Jesus Christ. Though He was God, He put aside His power and capability and knowledge to be fully submitted to the Fathers will. He depended on the Father for everything. Not just as an example, but for His mission to be accomplished through His revelation of the Father to the people.

It goes to the ontological argument, of what is the greater being. The one who cannot do anything original because everything he could do has already been done in His mind, or the one who can craft something even He couldn't fully anticipate. I go for option 2. It doesn't make sense for God to get mad at someone for doing something He already knew was going to happen.

My theory is the scenerio itself is certain. It has a beginning, it has an end. What is inbetween He may have certain ideas about, but obviously open to modification. He may plan for every possible scenerio but never quite know which will unfold because He has given us a measure of unpredictability.

So in this scenerio..

God creates a perfect world, giving man a blank slate for good or evil

Man chooses evil, God enforces the rules, death comes into the world and creation falls

Man is corrupted from sin and does continual evil that God is always trimming back and correcting

God works within the evil man creates, but it reaches the point of no return..

God is ready to give up on humans but finds one human he can work with

God resets the world, gives man another chance through Noah

Man is up to his old tricks but God sends His Son into the world this time to redeem Creation

Jesus imputes His righteouness and sinless nature into humanity, restoring them, takes our just punishment onto Himself and dies on the cross for our sins

He rises again breaking the power of death over humanity (which came from sin) and giving everyone the way to eternal life

God sets a date to judge the world, and will send His Son back when the church has spread the gospel to the four corners..

Jesus returns, comes back for His church and destroys the kingdom of the antichrist.

God judges the world and repays each according to their deeds
After the judgement, God destroys the corrupt creation and remakes it entirely new, and this time it will be permanently perfect. Thanks to Christ, the ones who believed in Him will have perfected natures and will sin no more and live forever in paradise

If you want to talk about greed and self-interest that is fine. I am a student of the human nature, and have many logical proofs I can offer even from a secular perspectives. My communication can always use fine tuning, however, I endevour that people should know the truth, because though they may stubbornly reject it at this point, will at some point need it, and more than that, just plain need to hear it. You discount the power of God completely, but I know He is always at work and the truth will facilitate that every time. I also appreciate that you noticed the unfair treatment I am receiving from other sifters. There is no reason to downvote these videos. They are well made and aren't masquarading as anything other than what they are. It's not as if they're in danger of becoming popular. They sin when they do this, and this is written about them:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I do dig Ecclesiastes - easily the most raw, human and cynical chapter of the good book.
http://videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh?loadcomm=1#comment-290039
In short, here is why I think the main, overarching plot of the Bible is silly.
Summary:
God creates flawed humans.
Flawed humans do flawed things.
God punishes all present and future humans because of the flaws in his prototypes.
After many generations, God drowns 99.9% of his land dwelling creatures save two of each. (not sure why the fish get off so easy)
Despite this massive genocide, humans are still flawed.
God impregnates a human virgin woman - in a committed relationship - without consent - who gives birth to a human/God hybrid son. (Kinda weird and rape-y to be honest)
The son is tortured and 'dies for our sins'. (What does that even mean, couldn't God just forgive us without this cruel theatrical charade that so few people of the world are physically able to witness?)
Jesus comes back from the dead (which isn't really that big of a deal, considering he is a part God).
Finally, after all of this violence and suffering, God decides to destroy the world, and take those who believe in him to heaven, and to punish those with skeptical or scientific minds with eternal suffering.
I mean, I guess I can understand mass murder, if God thinks so little of us that our destruction is no more tragic than Atari burying thousands of copies of E.T. in the desert. But if we are insignificant ants, then why the strict moral code that forbids murder? Are we unique and special creatures, or just crash test dummies to be toyed with?
None of the actions of God seem wise for a being of such knowledge and power. The Bible sounds like mythology. It sounds like a combination of campfire stories, moral parables, juicy pulp fiction, dirty jokes, political posturing, medical advice and pre-scientific speculation. It sounds like an anthology of the best of the best literature of early human civilization.
If God were real, why doesn't he just openly and clearly communicate it? Why all the rites and rituals? "Hey, dft, this is God you atheist schmuck.... or should I say ex-athiest schmuck. Put down the pork and put on your beanie!" That would be clear and to the point, and if done convincingly, would add a pretty decent guy to the ranks of his faithful.
Also, his followers are so hung up on pride, that they miss a good chance of making a connection. I told you that I don't believe in Satan, but that I do oppose the greed and ruthless self interest that your Satan seems want to champion. If you cared more about the principles of the bible than the principals in the Bible, wouldn't you be serving your lord better? Shouldn't you nurture the things we have in common and downplay the stuff I think is absurd? Baby steps. Religionists have no strategy or common sense when it comes to apologetics. You argue with me as if I believe in God and Satan.
Anyway, I've made these points so many times, and they just bounce off the framework of faith, just as your points bounce off my framework of reason. There will be no headway because our criteria for belief run so contrary. I think it's cool that you fight for what you believe in so passionately, and wish people wouldn't downvote your videos to the point that they are killed. I do think you could come up with more productive styles of argument.
I'd be curious to get your opinion on this video: http://videosift.com/video/Why-I-am-no-longer-a-Christian-Must-Watch

Individuality falls down once we want a society to work. We sacrifice something to make it work, some people want to be part of it without sacrificing - this is naive. You can check out of society and move somewhere else, or try to change it through politics to be more individually-centered. Taxes are not theft, it's a mutually consented agreement, but it was made by our forefathers, to make society work.

Now that sacrifice is not complete and total - we do have quite a lot of freedoms (liberty) within our societies, but these were agreed upon by our forefathers too. The constitution is just a piece of paper with some good ideas in it and some bad ones. This is what I mean, when I say natural rights don't exist. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. They are agreed upon. We may be comforted to say that our lives are our own, and within our society they are, because the society has agreed that this is a right.

Personally, I don't think guns are an important freedom. I even think there ought to be checks and balances to keep as many mentally unstable, criminals and other bad citizens from getting them. I'm not even comfortable with regular people having them - I don't want one myself, for certain. Just because it happened to be written down in the 1700s, doesn't mean it applies today. This is a right I think we should do away with, because it causes more grief than it solves.

Now mind you, if the american people were actually oppressed, then I would be all for them having something to defend themselves with - but like gun proponents like to say, then they would be able to get them anyway. I'm not talking about stopping guns 100%, I just want to stop 90 % of the nut balls, which a mandatory license would totally do. The other 10 % is another deal.
>> ^marbles:

>> ^gwiz665:
I must say that this seems naive to me.
Natural rights don't exist.

Naive like... individuals should'nt be allowed to have guns--that is unless they are paid by the state to have them.
Natural rights don't exist? 10 out of 10 tyrants agree. So where do rights come from?

"And how many of the couples who manage to stay together for the long haul have done so by resigning themselves to sacrificing their eroticism on the altar of three of life’s irreplaceable joys: family stability, companionship, and emotional, if not sexual, intimacy?" Sex at Dawn: Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality", the book that Dan Savage calls "the most important book on human sexuality since the Kinsey Report," which makes the argument that, while fidelity may be very well and good, it is in fact fighting evolution and human nature.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^MrFisk:
>> ^marbles:
Central planning of news! Is Fox the only one?
Six Major Corporations Own the Mainstream Media
Mainstream news brought to you by bankers and corporate kingpins.

While true that those corporations control 80 percent of the U.S. media only Fox News Corporation was designed specifically as a political mouthpiece.

So being a mouthpiece for the state isn't political? The only reason FoxNews fits smoothly into one half of left/right political structure is because they have been pretty consistent with their bias since their inception. MSNBC tries to play the antagonist role to Fox News a lot and the rest are usually more subtle and inconsistent. They can take turns flaunting their bias where Fox is the sole opponent by default. But the bottom line is it's all unintellectual lazy journalism. What more can you expect with centrally planned news coverage?


What, exactly, do you mean by "mouthpiece of the state" and "centrally planned news coverage?"

I'll generally agree with Jon Stewart that the media is often too lazy and sensationalistic. The fact of the matter is the media are a business and Fox News has become the most profitable television medium. Sure, MSNBC seems to be trying to mimic Fox News' success, from a liberal standpoint, by increasing subjective opinion by sacrificing objective news coverage. But you can't seriously mean that "the rest are usually more subtle and inconsistent" and that that suggests some sort of ulterior bias in favor of the Democratic party.

This is fucking pathetic. How long before these people are at an altar sacrificing virgins, begging god to make the sun come back. Hey America, maybe the reason your country is going down the drain is beacuse you keep voting fucking idiots like this into office. Ever think about that?

Also I wonder what it is that America did wrong to make god so angry. Whilst I admit it could be all the fag enabling could it not also be for all the wars and conflicts and dictators it enables? Perhapa it's the recent hassling of the arabs and stubborn support for Israel. Maybe Popefessor XVI at the Vatican school for the gifted could use his mutant abilities to ask god the answer. That is of course if he's not to busy enabling child molesters.

There is no civilization that that has openly empraced homosexuality and has survived...

*waves at Pat Robertson*
Oh, hello there! This is Europe, we even gone so far and turned away from god, too. Then we have legal prostitution, even some countries where pot is legal or assisted suicide. But what really pisses off Jesus is our affordable health-care for all, how dare we get treatment from doctors instead of the traditional way of praying and sacrificing animals?! And guess what, we're still here.


What a douche...
(edit: more fun facts about europe for comical effect)

So, lucky, the problem started with compromising in the first place. And you're caught up in the middle.

Essentially, a lot of sifters protested and the potential for them to leave was a danger to the sift. No sifters, no sift. The number was great enough to drop the morals and values of the sift.

Then, more people did the same and once again the morals and values were sacrificed, and the slippery slope continued.

However, it stops at Lawdee, because if Lawdee goes away, then the sift remains as it always was. The power to the masses. I can't fault you or dag for that, but I can fault the masses and their festering hatred and need for the morbid cancer. Such is that hatred that it is almost equal to a political party squabble, or a religious close-mindedness. But it does make me the appreciate the good sifters, like bare, and sage, and blank, and gwiz--sometimes... Heck, me and Animals hated each other for the longest, but I probably respect him the most now.

To clarify; I protest that "newsworthy" (arbitrary) content depicting someone's murder can be viewed here. I don't think the masses should have won the fight--I think the sift should have. I do not protest that a cop's murder, which I think (arbitrarily) is "newsworthy", should be shown either.

Again, I don't blame you or anyone who determines this policy; whereas a lot of people would (Like those who blamed you for not allowing them their snuff.) I guess I am just saddened.

@Gwiz, actually, I am conflicted when I ponder whether it really was a dick-measuring contest. Or was it the fact that I always try to be fair, even by being stupid?

circular logic at it's best.
one mans brilliant attempt to rationalize his own sense of persecution.
highlighting hitler and the third reich and the horrors of world war 2 while ignoring the fact that the tactic used had been used for thousands of years....by the church.
how do you get people,whole communities...nations...to go out and murder/slaughter other people?
by demonizing them.
and nothing compares to the power of demonizing another culture than religion,but for the past century this has been due to nationalism.love of country and not so much love of god,but this has been a fairly new enterprise when put in historical context.in the past it was the church whipping its religious flock into a murderous froth.
in regards to germany,demonizing the jewish people is more understandable when we look at what happened to germany after world war 1.what happened to their economy and political and social structure..they were RIPE with fear and uncertainty..which hitler exploited to his radical benefit.

key word:fear

religion uses this emotion like a bully in the pulpit.yet this emotion is antithetical to what jesus taught,but fear will always be the best tool to control and manipulate the masses.the church dons the mantle of false authority and instills fear in order to subjugate and enslave.
saint patrick is given credit for clearing ireland of "serpents".yet when you realize that "serpents" represents "pagans" i.e:actual human beings and that tens of thousands were murdered and slaughtered for not leaving when given the chance,one can only come up with a more apt word:attempted genocide.
think on that the next time your enjoying a pint of green beer.

i always wonder how a true follower of christ reconciles putting on a uniform,picking up a gun and shooting another human being.america's current military has become more and more christian based.with evangelicals joining in such groups as "warriors for christ".while i am fully aware of passages in the bible that not only condone acts of war,but demand it,i do not recall jesus ever once stating that killing your fellow man is a godly and righteous thing to do.

this is hypocrisy incarnate and,in my opinion,one of the very powerful points atheists point to and with good reason.religious historical slaughtering aside,this is happening NOW.
radicalized fundamentalist islamic people being manipulated into jihad by those who pretend to have the authority of god.
fundamentalist christians taking up a "crusade" against the warriors of allah.
as if 1500 years of murder,rape and slaughter were not enough to teach both of these easily manipulated people in to the continued killing of each other.
these people are being deceived by those who wish to dominate using the very scripture these poor souls have deemed holy writ.

another good example is how a small and fringe political ideological group called the "neo-conservatives"(formerly known as neo-liberal) hi-jacked the evangelical religious folk in the late 70's and it was the LEADERS of that evangelical movement that sacrificed their own parishoners to the wolves.
jerry falwell,baker,swaggert,roberts.
all of them used their authority and charisma to convince their followers the righteousness of this radical political ideology.
war,empire,domination,dismissal of the poor and weak.
all put into biblical terms which the faithful bought.hook..line and sinker.

i could go on but suffice to say atheists have a few really strong points when it comes to the hypocrisy of religion and it always amazes me how many religious folk are totally unaware of their own hypocrisy and circular logic.accusing others of this or that while being totally unaware they are doing the exact same thing...very much like this man in the video.
cherry picking certain sound-bytes while ignoring historical context does not an argument make...
quite the opposite.

i am going to upvote this just so we can see this train wreck of logic exposed for what it is:a rationalization.

Nice ambush. If you want to drag me into a thread, don't start it off by putting words in my mouth. It's extremely amusing how you're trying to set it all up; Okay, here is my comment on the video: This is complete bullshit. Yeah I really buy that she was just this sweet innocent little girl who had to study the bible and suddenly she is making militant antitheist videos on the internet. This has to be one of the least well adjusted girls I've ever seen..maybe she should quit her day job of appearing in wells because I've rarely seen such superbly edited mockery.

Here's my response about her entirely fabricated commentary. First of all, the verses she mentioned about pregnant women were prophecy about sinful nations who routinely sacrificed their own children to baal, among other things. God never ordered anyone to rip open pregnant women. That's completely false.

Here is a verse about slavery she missed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

The idea of slavery in those days was far different than our modern version. In ancient Israel, people who couldn't provide for themselves or their families were sometimes sold into slavery so they wouldn't die of exposure or starvation. That person would receive housing and food in exchange for labor.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The bible teaches equality for all people, which was a new idea at the time. Anyone following the bible wouldn't have kept a slave. And if you want to talk about slavery, there has never been an abolitionist movement outside of the Christian west. Freeing slaves seems to have been a uniquely Christian virtue. So much for atheism saving the world. All of this hyperbole about slaves, where people are trying to play this bible gotcha-game shows a complete lack of understanding of the history and the cultures of the time, or what is actually in the bible in the first place. All in all, pretty damn pathetic.

Propaganda piece for Jacque Fresco's Venus Project. Peter Joseph does a good job at recognizing problems but a lousy job at offering solutions. The Zeitgeist movement is about sacrificing individual sovereignty for the sake of a one-world vision. Joseph assumes everyone will abandon their own self-interest in the name of some global interest.

I have 2 problems with the Zeitgeist movement: 1) Morally, altruism is incompatible with freedom and individual rights. Man is not some sacrificial animal here to serve the collective group. 2) It's completely unrealistic. Everyone is always motivated by their own self interest. It's part of our DNA. Changing that is impossible.

Now what I'm really curious about is if Joseph really believes this bunk or if he's serving a greater agenda. Wonder who funded this most recent film. From a cinematic standpoint, it's pretty good.