Molyneux's Debate Technique

In the video above Stefan Molyneux tries to win a debate by deciding what a valid argument is and what isn't, which basically amounts up to him being right and the other person being wrong. Others have noticed his debating techniques as well and complied a list 7 years ago that is valid till this day. Here are some points.

1. Tangents;
When you ask Stef a question (in a verbal debate), he has the habit of very briefly and unsatisfactorily responding to it and then going off on a tangent for two minutes possibly in the hope that neither his discussion partner nor the audience will return to his unsatisfactory answer to his question and instead reply to the last thing he said (the tangent).

2. Misrepresentation;
Stef will misrepresent positions:
1. Create straw men and attack them
2. Say something like ‘but isn’t one plus one two?’ (in other words, put forward something that is both completely true and uncontroversial and completely irrelevant) so that there seems to be agreement when in fact there is not.

3. Cherry picking and ignoring questions;
Very often Stef does not even try to create the impression that he has answered your questions and will just downright ignore them.

4. Confusing quantity with quality;
When you call Stef on his not having answered your questions he tends to say something like ‘I participated in several threads on this topic, did 3 podcasts and had 2 personal conversations with listeners so don’t tell me that I haven’t engaged in the debate.' He sure has engaged in debate but he has not actually addressed let alone answered your most important arguments.

5. Psychologizing;
Stef wont address your arguments but instead try to steer the discussion toward your psychological state (that may account for your position in his eyes).

6. Ridiculing & Bullying;
While psychologizing, when applied wrongly, is already a form of bullying, there is also more obvious bullying going on on the board, like when Stef makes fun of other posters.

The video above falls under point 15.

15. Ending the debate;
Usually, in large part thanks to Stef's evasiveness, debates don't go very well, the core problem is not being discussed explicitly and instead there's a circling around that problem, with points being revisited and revisited.
The clever thing that Stef then does is take the initiative to end the debate, by for example sighing or just saying something like "okay, I don't think we're not moving forward anymore, so I'm gonna stop' or 'this has been a merry-go-round and I'm getting off now' or something like that. So he identifies what has been happening in the debate and then says that therefore it's time to stop. By so taking the initiative (especially if he accompanies it with a sigh or some other mild form of contempt) he can make it seem (to the audience and even in some cases to his discussion partner) as if the cause of the fruitlessness of the debate was his discussion partner (who kept going around in circles, who just wouldnt accept some point, whatever), not him.

Before you debate Stefan Molyneux it's probably a good idea to familiarize yourself with his debating techniques because in my opinion he's a pathological narcissist who convinced himself he's some great philosopher who simply can't be wrong and he'll put you through the wringer to maintain that public perception.

Peter Joseph found out as well. See video below.

Molyneux's Debate Technique

This one goes out to my cyberstalker and full blown psychopath Justin Templer who seems to have a problem with me exposing one of his personal heroes.

As a final hilarious point Molyneux goes against his own recommendation.

Stefan Molyneux Claims "Word Salad"

Stefan Molyneux - Reductionist Snake Oil Salesman

Watch closely how market fundamentalist Stefan Molyneux reasons and how he generalizes small economic textbook examples to the real world. Trade is voluntary but if you don't want to trade you can go live in the woods according to this great 'philosopher.' What's also hilarious is that Molyneux turns into a drama queen after Peter Joseph labels his ideas as truncated and simplistic and claims he engaged in an ad hominem attack. Molyneux himself had no problem labeling Peter's work as 'retarded,' 'for bong smoking hippies' and 'marxism with robots' in previous videos. All ad hominem attacks. It shows what kind of disingenuous con artist Molyneux really is.

Stefan Molyneux: Con Artist Or Pathological Bullshitter?

After seeing Stefan Molyneux's latest hatchet job on Nelson Mandela I think it's time that this borderline psychopath gets more attention in the blogosphere. Watch this video by Peter Joseph which is a culmination after a debate he had with Molyneux. The latter just about manages to twist, distort, smear the other person's position in every way possible. So the question arises, is Stefan Molyneux a deliberate con artist or pathological bullshitter? My take is that he's both.

Economic Calculation In A Natural Law / R.B.E.

Stefan Molyneux, Anarcho-Capitalism Rebutted

Culture In Decline, Episode 6 "Tale of Two Worlds"

Culture In Decline, Episode 5 " Baby Go Boom!"

Culture In Decline, Episode 4 "War On Nature"

Culture In Decline, Episode 3 "C.V.D."

Culture In Decline, Episode 2 "Economics 101"

Ultra-Con-Hard-On

It seems that after 4 years Alex Jones' hard-on for the Zeitgeist Movement continues. Peter Joseph explains the situation with the Texan conservative, and shows what a disingenuous redneck the guy is.

Culture In Decline, Episode 1 "What Democracy?"

New World Re-Order

Yesterday an article appeared in the Ventura County Reporter Online about the Zeitgeist Movement. Fortunately, it's a prime example of a reporter being objective and how it should be done - without the immediate mud-throwing because it challenges a persons ideology or monetary gain. The coined phrase 'New World Re-Order' also sounds much better and has a nice ring to it if I can be that honest. Maybe Michelle Goldberg and Samuel Gilonis can take a hint.

TZM: Response to Media; Death of Osama bin Laden

TZM: Response to Media; Death of Osama bin Laden

On May 1, 2011 Pres. Barack Obama appeared on national television with the spontaneous announcement that Osama bin Laden, the purported organizer of the tragic events of September 11th 2001, was killed by military forces in Pakistan.

Within moments, a media blitz ran across virtually all television networks in what could only be described as a grotesque celebratory display, reflective of a level of emotional immaturity that borders on cultural psychosis. Depictions of people running through the streets of New York and Washington chanting jingoistic American slogans, waving their flags like the members of some cult, praising the death of another human being, reveals yet another layer of this sickness we call modern society.

It is not the scope of this response to address the political usage of such an event or to illuminate the staged orchestration of how public perception was to be controlled by the mainstream media and the United States Government. Rather the point of this article is to express the gross irrationality apparent and how our culture becomes so easily fixed and emotionally charged with respect to surface symbology, rather than true root problems, solutions or rational considerations of circumstance.

The first and most obvious point is that the death of Osama bin Laden means nothing when it comes to the problem of international terrorism. His death simply serves as a catharsis for a culture that has a neurotic fixation on revenge and retribution. The very fact that the Government which, from a psychological standpoint, has always served as a paternal figure for it citizens, reinforces the idea that murdering people is a solution to anything should be enough for most of us to take pause and consider the quality of the values coming out of the zeitgeist itself.

However, beyond the emotional distortions and tragic, vindictive pattern of rewarding the continuation of human division and violence comes a more practical consideration regarding what the problem really is and the importance of that problem with respect to priority.

The death of any human being is of an immeasurable consequence in society. It is never just the death of the individual. It is the death of relationships, companionship, support and the integrity of familial and communal environments. The unnecessary deaths of 3000 people on September 11, 2001 is no more or no less important than the deaths of those during the World Wars, via cancer and disease, accidents or anything else.

As a society, it is safe to say that we seek a world that strategically limits all such unnecessary consequences through social approaches that allow for the greatest safety our ingenuity can create. It is in this context that the neurotic obsession with the events of September 11th, 2001 become gravely insulting and detrimental to progress. An environment has now been created where outrageous amounts of money, resources and energy is spent seeking and destroying very small subcultures of human beings that pose ideological differences and act on those differences through violence.

Yet, in the United States alone each year, roughly 30,000 people die from automobile accidents, the majority of which could be stopped by very simple structural changes. That's ten 9/11's each year... yet no one seems to pine over this epidemic. Likewise, over 1 million Americans die from heart disease and cancer annually - causes of which are now easily linked to environmental influences in the majority. Yet, regardless of the over 330 9/11's occurring each year in this context, the governmental budget
allocations for research on these illnesses is only a small fraction of the money spent on “anti-terrorism” operations.

Such a list could go on and on with regard to the perversion of priority when it comes to what it means to truly save and protect human life and I hope many out there can recognize the severe imbalance we have at hand with respect to our values.

So, coming back to the point of revenge and retribution, I will conclude this response with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., likely the most brilliant intuitive mind when it came to conflict and the power of non-violence. On September 15, 1963 a Birmingham Alabama church was bombed, killing four little girls attending Sunday school.

In a public address, Dr. King stated:

“What murdered these four girls? Look around. You will see that many people that you never thought about participated in this evil act. So tonight all of us must leave here with a new determination to struggle. God has a job for us to do. Maybe our mission is to save the soul of America. We can't save the soul of this nation throwing bricks. We can't save the soul of this nation getting our ammunitions and going out shooting physical weapons. We must know that we have something much more powerful. Just take up the ammunition of love.”

- Dr. Martin Luther King, 1963 -


~Peter Joseph

www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

Venus Split

This morning I listened to a meeting between Roxanne Meadows and coordinators (and other members) of the Zeitgeist Movement. Judging from Roxanne's words the split between the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement seems to be definitive. An interview uploaded on YouTube last week where Jacque Fresco criticizes TZM and Peter Joseph already sent shockwaves through many Zeitgeist members. Many were hoping this was a fling, Jacque having a bad day and shooting off his mouth. Happens to each and everyone of us at times. Sadly, everything said was sincere.

Instead of issuing an apology, Roxanne Meadows reiterated the split. I, and a lot of other Zeitgeist supporters are naturally very disappointed. This is like a figurative slap in the face. While Roxanne Meadows thanked the people involved for all the work they have done it didn't take the feeling away that she was being very unapologetic. She vaguely listed Zeitgeist going in another direction as to what the Venus Project stands for as the main reason. Which is unsatisfactory since Zeitgeist has supported TVP for years now. In fact TZM put the Venus Project on the map. It's only because of the efforts of Peter Joseph (and other people involved) that support for TVP grew substantially.

Meadows also feels that they (TVP) have no say over matters. So part of this argument seems to be centered around not only direction but control of the information as well. You have to wonder how this kind of distrust originated. Roxanne also had the gall to ask for (direct) support from Zeitgeist members in that meeting, to join the Venus Project. Inside information also reveals that Meadows and Fresco were on more than one occasion concerned that their material was properly credited. That tells me, and others noticed it as well, that ego issues are also part of this equation.

Perhaps the worst part is the timing. People have worked tirelessly on promoting the Venus Project for years and have put their heart and soul in it. Right now they barely get a 'thank you' and followed by a 'we'll take it from here!' That's probably the most hurtful for those involved. The Venus Project also asked for donations for a movie project to which many Zeitgeist members responded in donating money. Further adding to the friction. Adversaries of Zeitgeist and the Venus Project also have a field day because of this split. They couldn't be happier and when trolls are happy, that's saying something.

When all of the emotions have settled we must also get back to the original motivation. That is striving for a better world. This split is also a reminder of letting trivial or minor aspects get in the way of the greater good. It's a reminder that we are all vulnerable to matters of the ego. When the dust has settled the focus must return on the core motivation, and we'll simply take it from there in order to move forward.

P.S.
Here's a reaction from TZM international coordinator Gilbert Ismael.

An article by Zeitgeist U.S. chapter coordinator Jen Wilding.

And a response by Peter Joseph.

Vultures Delight

Well, it turned out to be an eventful day. Peter Joseph, founder of the Zeitgeist Movement (the activist arm of the Venus Project) and its de facto leader, stepped down as official spokesman of this organization. It's highly probable that a video that was uploaded on YouTube on the 11th of April was the cause of the breakup. In that video Jacque Fresco, founder of the Venus Project, criticizes Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement and the organization itself - generally speaking - of not doing his/its best. Of course what Fresco said was surely not a smart thing to do since no man has done more for the Venus Project in the media than Peter Joseph.

I also figure that this was the final straw for Peter Joseph. He already mentioned before the release of Zeitgeist Moving Forward that he was feeling exhausted and hadn't gotten much sleep meeting the deadline of the movie release. Joseph is also a constant target of attack by critics who seem to be engaged full time in discrediting the Venus Project, the Zeitgeist Movement and the people that are involved - on a personal level. It even goes to the extreme, and Joseph is labeled and pictured as the next Hitler or a dictator. This is actually how far some people are willing to go in order to dismiss another ideology and it's just unbelievable.

I'm also thinking that Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows are already regretting this incident. Likewise, I think Peter Joseph also regrets this situation but he just reached the limits of what he could take. All of this is unfortunate of course yet on the other hand we must realize that this was never about individuals. It is about the concept, the idea of a new sustainable and stable, peaceful society, and the people that carry the torch will eventually have to pass that on anyway. It's about moving the idea forward.


What's perhaps even more striking is the actions of the critics. I've noticed that when pro-Zeitgeist or Venus Project videos get uploaded it doesn't take that long before 'dislike' votes appear. Meaning, that some person(s) are actively monitoring the uploads and voting them down but also are looking for dirt. (I myself am privileged to 10 instant 'dislikes' whenever I upload something.) This is what happened with the video where Fresco makes his critique as well. There are many videos where people take a tour in Venus, Florida. The channel on which the video in question was presented didn't get that many views, but the critics found it amazingly fast anyway. That is simply an indication of intense monitoring.

The vultures were also quick to jump on (what they perceived to be) the carcass, the final nail in the coffin of the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project. Videos quickly appeared on the YouTube channels belonging to critics, highlighting the critique Fresco made, with added phrases such as "this is the end." While I'm sure that is the intent of their actions, and btw these are the same people that insanely yell that we supporters are in a cult, I'm afraid that's all they can hope for.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Venus Project, what some people on the foreground might say to one another, you can't take the motivation away in people. That motivation is striving for a better world. That's nothing cult-like or evil. It's just the quest for peace and harmony. And that's why the Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project will simply move on. That's why it also doesn't matter that Peter Joseph steps down. Kudos to him. He has done wonderful work. Now it's simply time that other people continue in his footsteps.

Zeitgeist Moving Forward Review

Here's my review of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. As a member of the Zeitgeist Movement I'm already inclined to view this movie through positive glasses, but even without those it's still a pretty decent cinematic journey and arguably Peter Joseph's best work. The film is not for people with short attention spans. It's 2 hours and 41 minutes long and filled with commentary by experts in their respected fields. Previous films by Peter Joseph received critique from some corners of our society as being conspiracy theory oriented. Well, you'll be hard pressed to find anything of that kind since the approach of this movie is mostly academic and soundly logical. Joseph adds humor here and there as well which lightens the atmosphere.

Since the release on YouTube yesterday it has already been viewed 250.000 times within 24 hours. The release in theaters around the world on the 15th of January was an astounding success and it's already safe to assume that the release on the internet will achieve the exact same result. Quite remarkable for a movement that basically exists completely outside the mainstream and mostly on the internet. As previously mentioned this movie is radically different from the previous ones in that much of what the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project proposes is supported by the testimony of experts. Here are the names and qualifications of the experts in order of appearance.

Dr. Robert Sapolsky
Professor of Neurological Science, Stanford University

Dr. Gabor Mathe
Physician, Author Portland Society

Richard Wilkinson
Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology, University of Nottingham

Dr. James Gilligan
Former Director: Center for the Study of Violence, Harvard Medical School

Dr. John McMurtry
Professor Emeritus, University of Geulph

Michael C. Ruppert
Investigative Journalist

Max Keiser
Financial Analyst

Dr. Berok Khoshnevis
Industrial & Systems Enginering, USC

Dr. Adrian Bowyer
Inventor / Engineer, Bath University, UK

Dr. Colin J. Campbell
Petroleum Geologist

Jeremy J. Gilbert
Petroleum Engineer

Narrated by Peter Joseph, and of course Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows from the Venus Project make an appearance.
The movie itself is split in to 4 parts.
I Human Nature
II Social Pathology
III Project Earth
IV Rise

The first section deals with "human nature" and the notion that some people are born "evil" or that it is "in the genes." All the experts that comment on this issue make short work of that notion. The essence being this; while some people may have a propensity for lets say violence or addiction, it is the environment itself that is the deciding factor. People aren't born aggressive or evil, they become that way through conditioning by the environment. Several doctors further add that conditioning can even start in the fetal state of human development and that the environment can even affect the human being on a physical level. The latter has tremendous implications since it means that your body literally adapts to the (hostile) surroundings.

Part two remains on the coarse of the human condition, yet the system we live in is also introduced. That being of course the monetary/free market system. The film explains in great detail what drives us the most; 'the acquisition of money and wealth at the expense of everything else.' It becomes obvious what insane kind of culture we live in. The economic 'infinite growth paradigm' is shown to be utterly false simply because you can't have infinite growth on a world with finite resources. Creating money out of thin air will only compound the problem. Debt will continue to grow until every country is bankrupt. Advances in technology and automation will continue to cause a rise in unemployment levels. The current economic system is simply unsustainable.

Project Earth, the third section of the movie starts off with a simple suggestion; 'what if you had a world - a new planet Earth with all its resources - and you had to start from scratch?' Peter Joseph naturally introduces the concept of a resource based economy step-by-step. Durability, efficiency and sustainability being the key elements in order to provide for every human being on the planet. It's not a question of would it work, it's a question of are we willing to change our values? The needed transitional aspects flow through the fourth part of the movie. Oil is going to run out, and when it does there will simply be an economic collapse and when the economy collapses, you can bet that our way of life will too. The latter is what permeates throughout the movie - our economy and way of life will simply collapse one day, purely by its design. There is still time change however.

As for criticisms on the movie I can think of a few, although to be honest I personally find them insignificant in the larger scheme of things. The movie itself is rather long, it's quite easy to lose concentration and you do need that in order to comprehend what the movie is saying. I also expect that some folks will have difficulty with all the terminology, it's not 6th grade grammar and if you're a foreigner with some understanding of the English language you would still need subtitles in your native tongue. The transition itself to a resource based economy, although clearly proposed, is not worked out in great detail. There's no manual and this is something that still needs to be worked on in my book. A personal fear of mine is that a transition to a resource based economy can still be corrupted. The present 'men behind the curtain' installing themselves once again in positions of power in a RBE, but I guess we'll just have to look for the warning signs when the time comes.

To summarize; it's just a great film. As mentioned before Peter Joseph's best work so far. I'm sure there are folks out there that would disagree with some aspects of the film or most of it but nobody can deny that there is much room for improvement in our current day society. Hopefully people will realize (and what the film points out) that it is the inequality that causes many problems. Why wait for crumbs to fall down, the economic trickle down effect people still hang on to while it is a myth? Why vote for politicians whose main concern is money itself and not humanity? It's time to wake up and realize the insanity we are currently in. From my perspective the mainstream media should air this movie on many channels just to create awareness, the movie at the very least does exactly that and increases our understanding on many levels. The latter currently also being one of the main trusts of the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project. It's simply time that we start to consider alternatives. It's time to move forward.

Dutch Screening Zeitgeist Moving Forward

Just returned from Amsterdam where Zeitgeist Moving Forward was shown in Studio/K. Not a huge cinema but not small either. The place kind of has a multi-role since there's a bar, restaurant, conference centers and so on. Very up to date, modern standard-wise. So that was a bonus. Met some of the guys from the Dutch Zeitgeist chapter including 'Darkdancer', the international chapter coordinator who made a speech before the film started.


The place was packed. The picture above was taken where people were still walking in. About the movie itself, it's a fine documentary although a bit long. Critics of the first Zeitgeist movie will be happy to know that Peter Joseph has completely steered away from any type of conspiracy theory. Most of the material that is discussed is done so by scholars who comment extensively on social issues. Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows make an appearance but compared to Zeitgeist Addendum their part is considerably less. Of course the Venus Project is mentioned as a viable alternative, that aspect of the movie is the same as in Addendum. There are also 3 highly humorous moments in the movie and one of them caught me completely off guard thinking "what the hell is going on" before realizing it was part of the performance. So yes, Peter Joseph definitely has a sense of humor.


Afterwards there was a debate about the movie. Professors Fennema and Klamer joined Verhaar (founder of a bank) and Gilbert (Darkdancer) to discuss the movie. While there certainly was some critique on the movie by a couple of these gentlemen (The Venus Project not being a democracy and the inability of technology to solve every problem) they also agreed on a number of items such as the unrestricted greed by unregulated banks and the breakdown of social values. I didn't stay the entire debate so I have to comment on this further when this debate is uploaded on YouTube.

Zeitgeist Moving Forward is a fine film, go watch it in the cinema if you have the chance.