Sunday, December 27, 2020

Peter Joseph can't provide the future of Civilization

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

Who Is Nomi Abadi?

ABADI, NOMI VS MEROLA, PETER | Court Records - UniCourt

Case Summary

On 12/23/2020 ABADI, NOMI filed a Family - Other Family lawsuit against MEROLA, PETER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pasadena Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARTELLA, TIMOTHY. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Peter: If a parent or – first of all, the leading cause of divorce is financial, I think we all know that. Divorce has had a tremendous psychological effect on children. There's a whole spectrum of these things but I often use the example of the woman. She's a single mother. She gets fired from her job and it wasn't her fault she was fired. They just had to downsize for whatever purpose, basic market correction. She's unable to take care of her child. That child can't – she can't afford healthcare. She can't afford to have a babysitter. She deals with whatever she can and she's loosely been able to take care of this child because of the pressures around her. She doesn't have the means to do so.

One day, the child stumbles and has some type of accident that would not have happened if there was actually the condition for that parent or parents to properly have the capacity to take care their children. And this spirals out into the sphere of public health. It is incredibly important. If you're not familiar with it, I'm absolutely amazed because it is the most important attribute. I'm so disgusted by the market system because it reinforces inequality more than anything else. Every single historical text that goes back both in criticisms with advocation of capitalism have denoted this inequality, much harped upon by people like Thomas Malthus who firmly ingrained the propensity or the assumption that there isn't enough to go around and therefore inequality is inevitable. And I can go on a long tangent about all the other distortions that arise from that --

Stefan: I just have to interrupt you for a second because I just looked something up. You said that the leading cause of divorce was economic problems. At least according to the top five reasons for 2011 on matrimonial survey by Grant Thornton in the UK, the number one reason is falling out of love, that's 27%; extramarital affair is number two at 25%; unreasonably behavior at 17%; mid-life crisis at 10%; and emotional or physical abuse at 6%. The last stuff I read in North America was that the leading – I mean the majority of divorces were initiated by women and the number one cause was dissatisfaction. And so just if you can give me the source for the economic stuff, that would be great.

Peter: I have at least three texts that source that. First of all, statistical things run into problems all the time, almost every single person I've seen gets divorced has had tremendous financial issues. I have read that statistic at least five times. I will email you that statistic. And if that isn't actually correct anymore, I can assure you, it is a very large part of what's happening in the world as far as familial problems. Almost every argument I have with my girlfriend these days revolves around money. So you can take your little isolated dismissal that -- and run with it, that's fine. I don't care. It's completely irrelevant to the point in hand and that's structural issue.

Stefan: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hang on. That sounded a little bit insulting. “Take my little isolated dismissal?” You provided information that I had counter information to. Is that not allowed in this conversation?

Peter: No, but I think it completely bypasses the point I'm trying to make. It utterly bypasses and creates distraction.

Stefan: I'm sorry. If facts contradict the point that you're trying to make, do you not want me to bring them up?

Peter: No, facts don't contradict anything. You can nitpick about certain issues all you want, but you're distracting from the actual structural violence issue that I'm trying to talk about. So some of the issues in this conversation in the sake of argument, you run to do a little internet search and try to find something to debunk something I've just said which is corollary to what I'm actually pointing out.

Listen, I'm highly fallible. If I run any type of stat and it's found to be wrong, first of all, I'll show you my source. I'm happy to send it to you, but I would like to focus on what's actually critically relevant here and that's the source of structural violence.

Let me get back to my point with all due respect. When I think about this reality of structural violence and the 18 million people and more that die every single year unnecessarily due to inequality and poverty from absolute and relative depravation. I listened to a head Austrian economist, talking about the inherent violence and coercion of the income tax system and other relatively stupid shit in the wake of unnecessarily – unnecessary, I should say, daily mass murder originating from the market system's competitive propensity for gross and constant wealth imbalance and all the problems that come from that I'm not impressed.

Stefan: Wait, sorry, are you saying that the market system – well, first of all, income tax causes a huge amount of stress on marriages. Income tax has been argued to be the primary reason why you need a two-income household and kids are getting dumped in daycare. So if you're going to say that marriage has problems because of financial pressures and then you're going to dismiss the income tax which is the largest single bill that most couples have, I think you might be missing the point.

Sunday, December 20, 2020

Peter Joseph promotes an Eugenicist

Monday, December 7, 2020

A Vegan reflects on the Zeitgeist Movement

Saturday, November 28, 2020

ZDAY 2020 review


Where is waldo ? I mean Peter Joseph Merola




Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Peter Joseph goes after Peter Diamandis

Sunday, November 22, 2020

Peter Joseph goes after Lara Trump

Friday, November 20, 2020

Peter Joseph doesn't like positivity

Tuesday, November 3, 2020

The Venus Project tries to embarrass Douglas Mallette

 

 

Friday, October 23, 2020

There will be bikes still

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Peter Joseph goes after 50 Cent

Tuesday, October 6, 2020

InterReflections reviewed




 1/10
It's not just bad. It's worse. B-movies at least have charm.
federicopistono13 October 2020
I am intemately familiar with the filmmaker, Peter Joseph.

I know him, professionally, and personally.

I enjoyed watching the Zeitgeist film series.

While I have many reservations about the content of the three movies, they undoubtedly had a style to be recognized and appreciated. They had a clear tone and a direction.

I had hopes for Joseph's latest creation, Interreflections, which has been in the making for almost a decade.

While I may disagree with the man and his worldview, I can appreciate an artist's work independently.

I tried watching Interreflections.

I really did.

It was quite literally the worst thing I've ever seen in my life.

I've indulged b-movies, c-rated actors, and plain bad stuff. I can endure 10 minutes of something like sharknado every few years.

No problem.

But I couldn't watch this garbage for more than 2 minutes straight. I had to skip through to see if it got any better at some point.

It didn't.

The green screen is so unbelievably bad it makes everything feel fake beyond imagination.

The acting is even worse.

The plot is non-existent.

I think the major problem of this film is that it can't decide what it is.

Is it a documentary? Is it a fiction? A docu-fiction?

There are scenes where there seems to be a genuine interview with a scientist. And yet, it's painfully obvious that those words did not come out naturally. They were scripted, and badly.

The drama doesn't feel like one. If I wanted to explain to my students at a film school what terrible filmmaking is and why, I would show a scene from Interreflections, and have them anlyze it.

It'd be a great exercize.

Interreflections is the perfect example of what you should not do as a filmmaker.

It pretends to portray a new point of view, while it simply rehashes old ideologies, minus the insight or the wittiness.

It wants to be a drama, but has not story and no structure.

It tries to make you think and question authority, but all it does is provide a different kind of propaganda.

Between the atrocious use of green screen, the terrible acting, and the condescending pandering of both the interviews and the "plot", I could not follow anything for more than 60 seconds.

I can't believe Joseph spent half a million and worked for 8 years on this garbage.

There is a silver lining though.

If I ever teach filmmaking techniques to my students, I will refer to this film as a step-by-step guide on what not to do.