Zeitgeist Deception - Producer no longer feels 9/11 was an inside job

[chrisfromchi]

Well, mainly because I'm a student and don't need money to live (quite literally) -- it's not hard

I've been out of school, I'm well aware of the world thank-you.

Really? cause that looks like lying, cause that seems like having it both ways.

I haven't lied to you at all. And, your circular reasoning of ignoring present-day knowledge lends you no help my friend. It is emotions that are attached to our current systems, and that's why you're afraid of real change (ego attached to it), in comparison with a resource-based economy.

You wouldn't have used circular reasoning if i didn't seed it into the arguement below.

Yes it is emotions. You believe in your heart that this resource-based society will bring the righteousness and goodness that the human soul deserves.
Alex just asks you to research the NWO, not go out and sell his dvds. The zeitgeist people are trying to sign up investors for this idea and get donations based on an emotionally based idea of a utopia future where everyone has what they want, cause yes on paper there are enough resources for everyone but there are no robots..no food replicators...solar cells and fuel cells are not yet able to do things...maybe 100 years but thats along way to start donating now and spreading this idea...that's why i believe zeitgeist is a scam, cause instead of becoming self sufficient and working on ways of bettering yourself, all you do is use circular logic and tag marketing words like resource based economy.

See my Jedi powers in work? I seeded that in your brain! or you use lawyer tactics and thus a sign of you being a scam...which one is it?

I am your Master or you a Scam Artist?

[BrentonEccles]

I am not using any tactics whatsoever.

Quote from: BrentonEccles on Today at 01:57:13 AM
Well, mainly because I'm a student and don't need money to live (quite literally) -- it's not hard

Quote from: BrentonEccles on Today at 02:10:38 AM
I've been out of school, I'm well aware of the world thank-you.

Really? cause that looks like lying, cause that seems like having it both ways.

How does that look like lying? I haven't spent my whole life in educational institutions, so what?

If you'd like to continue this line of discussion, however, I really have no interest. I am here to talk about society, not my opinions or what I've done (work or school). If you want to talk about that sort of stuff then you can IM me or e-mail me, but I'm not going to spend valuable time talking about myself.

[chrisfromchi]

I am not using any tactics whatsoever.
How does that look like lying? I haven't spent my whole life in educational institutions, so what?

If you'd like to continue this line of discussion, however, I really have no interest. I am here to talk about society, not my opinions or what I've done (work or school). If you want to talk about that sort of stuff then you can IM me or e-mail me, but I'm not going to spend valuable time talking about myself.

I dedicated this to my victory then. Goodnight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qItugh-fFgg

[BrentonEccles]

I dedicated this to my victory then. Goodnight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qItugh-fFgg

You have won nothing more than post counts.

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
Albert Einstein

[chrisfromchi]

You have won nothing more than post counts.

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
Albert Einstein

That is why you fail.

[Magnumpi]

You bring up society which, if you're on this site, are aware, is been/being manipulated. And, with your apparent level of enlightenment, you can probably also recognize that this popular society, is relatively devoid of challenge. Maybe also notice that the deep, and very human, bonds that people share is greatly undervalued and often neglected outright in pursuit of more shallow endeavors. We're actually in agreement there, but I don't live for the collective, however the solution is certainly not to remove challenge and further the decline of connection between people in the process. This leads to a cold and selfish society, not one of perpetual growth.

Take the Greeks, they had it all, sat on their asses, fornicating wildly as their society crumbled. Humans aren't meant to be caged. What you fail to see is that Z Day is coming, and it ain't peaches as your prophets put forth. Everything is becoming automated, people are doing less. A whimsical, futuristic story is just new spin on the same old agenda.

Like every other good thing in this world, leisure and culture have to be paid for. Fortunately, however, it is not the leisured and the cultured who have to pay.
&
The worst enemy of life, freedom and the common decencies is total anarchy; their second worst enemy is total efficiency.
Aldous Huxley

[BrentonEccles]

You bring up society which, if you're on this site, are aware, is been/being manipulated. And, with your apparent level of enlightenment, you can probably also recognize that this popular society, is relatively devoid of challenge. Maybe also notice that the deep, and very human, bonds that people share is greatly undervalued and often neglected outright in pursuit of more shallow endeavors. We're actually in agreement there, but I don't live for the collective, however the solution is certainly not to remove challenge and further the decline of connection between people in the process. This leads to a cold and selfish society, not one of perpetual growth.

Take the Greeks, they had it all, sat on their asses, fornicating wildly as their society crumbled. Humans aren't meant to be caged. What you fail to see is that Z Day is coming, and it ain't peaches as your prophets put forth. Everything is becoming automated, people are doing less. A whimsical, futuristic story is just new spin on the same old agenda.

Like every other good thing in this world, leisure and culture have to be paid for. Fortunately, however, it is not the leisured and the cultured who have to pay.
&
The worst enemy of life, freedom and the common decencies is total anarchy; their second worst enemy is total efficiency.
Aldous Huxley

but I don't live for the collective, however the solution is certainly not to remove challenge and further the decline of connection between people in the process. This leads to a cold and selfish society, not one of perpetual growth.

In a Resource-based Economy people would be a lot more challeneged for there would be no need for people to work in pointless jobs like service cashiers and  so forth. All that would be left would be the fields of innovation from the Humanities to the Sciences that truly challenges humanity.
It is this structure that is detrimental, in which will people will do what they need to in order to survive (e.g., college students who work in strip clubs by night to pay their bills).

[Magnumpi]

So, everyone is going to be involved in sciences and humanities? There won't be 5 billion TV watchers and ass growers? Get real. I tried reason, but you're really just delusional.

[Unintelligable Name]

I tried reason, but you're really just delusional.

He's happy to be apart of something he feels is new and exciting. His follies are many but he is more annoying than a serious detriment.

On page 69 and continuing, the Zeitgeist supports keep on showing up, leaving, showing up, leaving, showing up, and leaving.

Clearly a mental blind spot exists in arguing points on the Internet which your audience cares not for yet you press on undetered. Silly you do not see the pointlessness of this debate, but fear not -- for I do.

[Dig]

You have won nothing more than post counts.

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
Albert Einstein

Wow, quoting the patent stealing peadophile that helped escalete the arms race into uncontrollable proportions all while boasting that those brave souls who defend our great country should have their brains removed from their bodies.

Classic.

[White Rose Sophie]

No, it's not based on emotions.
You give people access to the necessities of life, and they'll behave VERY differently. That's Science, not emotions and not opinion.

Funny, how giving people 'access to the necessities of life" didn't exactly change the people of the former Soviet Union, did it?  Yet again - WHO decides what necessities are?

And I love the disarmament clause....   If everyone is disarmed, then WHO is to protect those who are victimized by others? Are you saying that no one will victimize anyone else in this Utopian world you envision?  Unfortunately, history teaches likewise. How will the "Venus Project" achieve total 'disarmament"?  (Another U.N. goal I'm afraid- Blavatsky herself said that the "Atomic Bomb" no longer belongs to the country who created it.  It will be used by the United Nations against those countries who 'threaten' their neighbors) 

For instance - I am female.  What happens if a male decides that he is sexually attracted to me but I am not likewise to him, and he acts upon that attraction?  If I am 'disarmed", how am I able to protect myself against that?  A 'grass-roots' society does not mean that there is no organized structure with defined responsibilities. 

The whole Venus Project is designed upon the assumption that man is basically "good' and selfless and will work together for the common good of other men.  I'm sorry, but there has been 3000+ years of mankind's history which has proved that assumption  wrong.

I wish you great success in your endeavor to persuade Mr Rockefeller/Mr Rothschild, the House of Windsor, etc to reallocate their wealth, property and resources for the good of mankind.  I personally would like Hampton Court palace myself to live in - if I join the Venus Project can I put first dibs on that as part of my 'reallocation'? Or maybe one of the Rothschild wineries?

It seems you are selling the Venus Project on the wrong forum - maybe the ones who HOLD the world's 'resources" are the ones you need to convince. 

Good Luck 

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

whether they would care to admit it or not, Z followers wish to implement a PLANNED society, whether or not this PLANNING is for some common good or the benefit of mankind or some other vague abstraction, it is indeed still PLANNED.

the worst part is, these same people have not got a frickin clue what that means, they do not understand what a planned society means, because they have not thought past "ohh wouldnt it be lovely if there was no scarcity".

[xTruthSeekerx]

the z boy guy does a nice job twisting scripture

[Freeski]

whether they would care to admit it or not, Z followers wish to implement a PLANNED society, whether or not this PLANNING is for some common good or the benefit of mankind or some other vague abstraction, it is indeed still PLANNED.

the worst part is, these same people have not got a frickin clue what that means, they do not understand what a planned society means, because they have not thought past "ohh wouldnt it be lovely if there was no scarcity".

Bingo! A planned society (or market) is the opposite of a free society.

[squarepusher]

A planned society has been done before... it was called the 'Soviet Union'.

Seriously, some brainwashed (and jobless) folk out there need to go see a good expose on The Soviet Union (I recommend 'The Soviet Story' and 'Pandora's Box') and wake the hell up - they're falling for regurgitated Marxist crap.

[BrentonEccles]

Z followers wish to implement a PLANNED society

Ofcourse we're willing to admit that! You have to have a plan for the necessities of life or you have continual chaos like we have now.
Every society, is planned -- even moreso the ones that use political, monetary, legal or other structures because over time (as we have seen) they tend to grow and become more encroaching.

A resource-based economy would be a contraction in those levels of control in the highest order. So, really, to argue that it's a 'planned' society and therefore not free is a total contradiction in light of what most of you advocate. A society, by it's very nature as an entity of organised people in an environment IS planned no matter what system you go for. The difference is with a society based on science and technological understanding is that we continually surpass what we already have, rather than holding hard and fast to mans opinion.

A planned society has been done before... it was called the 'Soviet Union'.

The Soviet Union collapsed for the same reasons we are now. They didn't have a tangible method, and therefore what they were aiming for didn't even materialise for a second. Why? Because they made a social system exactly the same as all the others. It was only different idealistically.

[Parentsfortruth]

A planned society has been done before... it was called the 'Soviet Union'.

Seriously, some brainwashed (and jobless) folk out there need to go see a good expose on The Soviet Union (I recommend 'The Soviet Story' and 'Pandora's Box') and wake the hell up - they're falling for regurgitated Marxist crap.

Coming here soon.

[Jackson Holly]

BrentonEccles:

Why are the Z People so sold on continuing on the path of ever-higher technology? Isn't it taking us down a path of de-humanization and self-destruction?

[trailhound]

- they're falling for regurgitated Marxist crap.

+1

[mr anderson]

- they're falling for regurgitated Marxist crap.

+1

“The mission of the movement is the application of the scientific method for social change,” Mr. Joseph announced by way of introduction. The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=1

[Dig]

Ofcourse we're willing to admit that! You have to have a plan for the necessities of life or you have continual chaos like we have now.
Every society, is planned -- even moreso the ones that use political, monetary, legal or other structures because over time (as we have seen) they tend to grow and become more encroaching.

A resource-based economy would be a contraction in those levels of control in the highest order. So, really, to argue that it's a 'planned' society and therefore not free is a total contradiction in light of what most of you advocate. A society, by it's very nature as an entity of organised people in an environment IS planned no matter what system you go for. The difference is with a society based on science and technological understanding is that we continually surpass what we already have, rather than holding hard and fast to mans opinion.
The Soviet Union collapsed for the same reasons we are now. They didn't have a tangible method, and therefore what they were aiming for didn't even materialise for a second. Why? Because they made a social system exactly the same as all the others. It was only different idealistically.

I do have to say Brenton, you are by far the most composed and helpful member of this forum who promotes the Venus Lala land.  I mean I really got to hand it to you, you are getting pretty much slammed but you just seem to react like water to a duck.  I think that this is very helpful as it promotes healthy discourse and an exchange of ideas.

I personally feel that your proposals will lead to mass genocide of billions of people and slavery for the survivors, but that is just me.

So please if you can describe what will need to take place to allow for your revolution.

That would be cool.

Thanks

[Freeski]

Ofcourse we're willing to admit that! You have to have a plan for the necessities of life or you have continual chaos like we have now.
Every society, is planned -- even moreso the ones that use political, monetary, legal or other structures because over time (as we have seen) they tend to grow and become more encroaching.

A resource-based economy would be a contraction in those levels of control in the highest order. So, really, to argue that it's a 'planned' society and therefore not free is a total contradiction in light of what most of you advocate. A society, by it's very nature as an entity of organised people in an environment IS planned no matter what system you go for. The difference is with a society based on science and technological understanding is that we continually surpass what we already have, rather than holding hard and fast to mans opinion.

I think we all can agree that what we have now is no good, but any planned society requires some form of control, be that the tyranny of democracy, communism, socialism, fascism, corporatism, venusism or whatever; it is a boot stomping on the face of individual liberty - forever.

A planned society requires a certain level of control (in order to implement said plan and to make sure everything stays on course), as opposed to a society that naturally evolves with the free exchange of goods, services and ideas. The absolutely beauty of an unplanned society is true liberty; things like spontaneity, pleasant surprises, learning from mistakes, being rewarded for making good choices, never knowing what tomorrow may bring, but also, knowing that anything is possible. The unencumbered freedom to choose the direction of one's own life is the essence of life, in my books.

[BrentonEccles]

Why are the Z People so sold on continuing on the path of ever-higher technology? Isn't it taking us down a path of de-humanization and self-destruction?

Absolutely, but it's not science and technology. It's the abuse and misuse of it. You can take an airplane and use it to fly people across the country, or you can take it and put chemical sprays over a city. It's up to ALL of us, to decide what to do with it.

“The mission of the movement is the application of the scientific method for social change,” Mr. Joseph announced by way of introduction. The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life.

So now you're attacking creative writing? :p

...you are getting pretty much slammed but you just seem to react like water to a duck.

Probably the major reason for that is because most of the people here are coming back with the same circular reasoning that they've been spoon fed by fundamentalists and Alex Jones' warped understanding of our proposals. If one angry person can convince them of something, then surely, educated discussion will promote an outcome even better.

I personally feel that your proposals will lead to mass genocide of billions of people and slavery for the survivors, but that is just me

If we continue our current path of using technology to control populations, and this system of scarcity-based resource allocation poverty will only continue to rise as it has been. If you'd like an example of something that is (though not really) somewhat like what a resource-based economy can be take a look at the Masdar city being created in Dubai. We're just talking about applying the highest levels of science and technology to enable people to have a high standard of living. No more social institutional control.

[squarepusher]

The Soviet Union collapsed for the same reasons we are now. They didn't have a tangible method, and therefore what they were aiming for didn't even materialise for a second. Why? Because they made a social system exactly the same as all the others. It was only different idealistically.

Here we have another one who did not read Lenin's own works, or read Anthony Sutton's exposes on western financing of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union did NOT collapse because of monetary concerns - it was an engineered collapse, just like the economic collapse of today. It had fulfilled its purpose for its paymasters - the west. Mikhail Gorbachev even alluded to that when he said to his fellow Comrades 'There are those who will say communism is dead. Don't believe it - we are simply moving on to the next phase, which is a merger with the west'. Shortly thereafter, he sets up shop in the United States and (ghost)writes a book where he pushes for a new global 'green' religion, 'Towards A New Beginning'.

The Soviet Union was a socialist experiment financed by the western elites - Pavlov was a hero of the British aristocracy - even the American equivalents. FDR's wife was a huge fan of the Pavlovian conditioning the Soviet people underwent - children were all docile, quiet and subservient - that was the way she liked it.

Are you beginning to understand how you're being used now? No, I don't think so. You will first need to read Anthony Sutton's books on the Soviets ('Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution is a good start), then maybe watch 'The Soviet Story' or 'Pandora's Box'.

Basically, I am well convinced (in fact I'm 90% sure of it) that your 'group' is paving the way for the same bloody thing - the same thing Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev and other socialist lovers have been pushing for years. This is always the problem - a dumbed-down utopia is presented to the masses, but when you trace it to its source it's the same bloody thing all over again.

Basically, it's beyond me how you can simply accept, at face-value, this kind of dumbed-down, child-like rhetoric (using 'slogans' such as 'sustainable development' 'carrying capacity of the Earth' and 'resource-based economy') without any proof being presented whatsoever, no prior examples, just the promise of the new. It's not new - it's old, recycled trash - predating even Marx and Engels.

[trailhound]

poverty will only continue to rise as it has been.

  poverty 

[BrentonEccles]

I think we all can agree that what we have now is no good, but any planned society requires some form of control, be that the tyranny of democracy, communism, socialism, fascism, corporatism, venusism or whatever; it is a boot stomping on the face of individual liberty - forever.

A planned society requires a certain level of control (in order to implement said plan and to make sure everything stays on course), as opposed to a society that naturally evolves with the free exchange of goods, services and ideas. The absolutely beauty of an unplanned society is true liberty; things like spontaneity, pleasant surprises, learning from mistakes, being rewarded for making good choices, never knowing what tomorrow may bring, but also, knowing that anything is possible. The unencumbered freedom to choose the direction of one's own life is the essence of life, in my books.

That sounds nice but it's a total fallacy. Every society, including free-market economics in it's true form is an organised and designed society. If you have structures of money (which, no matter what system causes stratification and dictatorship of the rich on some level or another), if you have legal (you just need to create a condition of mob psychology to get people to demand, for example, the death penalty). Unless there's equal access to all things at all times, then there's no such thing as liberties and equal rights - period.
It's just amazing hypocrisy to uphold values of freedom, truth, liberty and love -- and then in the same breath to say that we need these social structures which are "divide and conquers" in and of themselves.

And that doesn't mean I'm not saying that a resource-based economy doesn't have a degree of design or organisation. It's just that everyone has equal access, liberties. If you want to go to university, you go to university without the need to pay huge fees. Everything is made available because it benefits everyone when they have equal access.
We in the Western world know this, or at least most of us do. Then contrast our standard of living with that of the slums of India. They aren't educated, they can't contribute and they certainly don't have the rights and privileges that we have. This is because their access to what they need is strictly limited. It's a sad, awful, reality.

[BrentonEccles]

poverty will only continue to rise as it has been.

  poverty 

If you want to relevantly discuss this I'd encourage you to discuss my words in context.

[squarepusher]

We in the Western world know this, or at least most of us do. Then contrast our standard of living with that of the slums of India. They aren't educated, they can't contribute and they certainly don't have the rights and privileges that we have. This is because their access to what they need is strictly limited. It's a sad, awful, reality.

What I think you'll find is that in India they have a caste system - in fact, very similar to the British - one-on-one, even.

You'll also find, if you really delve into your history, that the aristocratic families only decided to train the masses to read/write because they had to be indoctrinated to a certain degree and 'programmed' to a certain degree to perform menial tasks. You know, working in a factory does not only involve picking up a hammer and tightening screws - at a certain point, you have to be able to 'interpret' written word and put it into practice.

That is why they decided to 'educate' you. But they only gave you so much as you needed to 'know'. And the rest that you did not need to know, they either did not provide you or, because of the basic Pavlovian need to reward yourself (by going shopping, making love to the opposite sex, playing, watching a movie, playing a videogame), you would not care to look into.

[Freeski]

That sounds nice but it's a total fallacy. Every society, including free-market economics in it's true form is an organised and designed society. If you have structures of money (which, no matter what system causes stratification and dictatorship of the rich on some level or another), if you have legal (you just need to create a condition of mob psychology to get people to demand, for example, the death penalty). Unless there's equal access to all things at all times, then there's no such thing as liberties and equal rights - period.
It's just amazing hypocrisy to uphold values of freedom, truth, liberty and love -- and then in the same breath to say that we need these social structures which are "divide and conquers" in and of themselves.

"Every society, including free-market economics in it's true form is an organised and designed society."

Ah, but in my utopian world-view, "organization" is voluntary and not planned/orchestrated/dictated by some wiser committee. "Voluntary" being the operative word, and essential for liberty to flourish. Voluntarism is the secret vote that starves bad ideas and keeps great ideas alive.

[BrentonEccles]

Here we have another one who did not read Lenin's own works, or read Anthony Sutton's exposes on western financing of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union did NOT collapse because of monetary concerns - it was an engineered collapse, just like the economic collapse of today. Mikhail Gorbachev even alluded to that when he said to his fellow Comrades 'There are those who will say communism is dead. Don't believe it - we are simply moving on to the next phase, which is a merger with the west'. Shortly thereafter, he sets up shop in the United States and (ghost)writes a book where he pushes for a new global 'green' religion, 'Towards A New Beginning'.

The Soviet Union was a socialist experiment financed by the western elites - Pavlov was a hero of the British aristocracy - even the American equivalents. FDR's wife was a huge fan of the Pavlovian conditioning the Soviet people underwent - children were all docile, quiet and subservient - that was the way she liked it.

Are you beginning to understand how you're being used now? No, I don't think so. You will first need to read Anthony Sutton's books on the Soviets ('Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution is a good start), then maybe watch 'The Soviet Story' or 'Pandora's Box'.

Basically, I am well convinced (in fact I'm 90% sure of it) that your 'group' is paving the way for the same bloody thing - the same thing Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev and other socialist lovers have been pushing for years. This is always the problem - a dumbed-down utopia is presented to the masses, but when you trace it to its source it's the same bloody thing all over again.

Basically, it's beyond me how you can simply accept, at face-value, this kind of dumbed-down, child-like rhetoric (using 'slogans' such as 'sustainable development' 'carrying capacity of the Earth' and 'resource-based economy') without any proof being presented whatsoever, no prior examples, just the promise of the new. It's not new - it's old, recycled trash - predating even Marx and Engels.

Oh excuse my words, I'm not trying to say that the Soviet Union collapsed because they were dumbasses who set up an economic system that failed. Allow me to make it clearer, monetary economics is doomed in any form.

a dumbed-down utopia is presented to the masses

Now that's a really interesting thing to say, consider the fact that Communism; Socialism etc did not and do not have a tangible line to work along. They might have started out all well, but because they had no actual system to work toward the same problems that we have came up (as you say, engineered - no one is denying that) and hey-presto failed system! Unfortunately what you're talking about is really quite fallacious because we really -do- have the resources to do this.
You are well aware of alternative energies, I'm sure. You're also probably aware of the U.N's 'World Water Report' which even they admitted in that there's more than enough water for every single person the planet if we chose to tackle it on a global scale. Unfortunately the U.N., pursues the same train of thought as our present social systems -- that they're not the problem.
You might be aware that even within the monetary system we could solve poverty (or at least hunger) if we wanted to. It would just take us westerners to take a decent portion of the grain we're feeding our meat with and give it to them.
The solutions are just really endless once we decide to apply our science and technology (not pseudo-science, not scientific agendas) through the social application of the scientific method.

child-like rhetoric (using 'slogans' such as 'sustainable development' 'carrying capacity of the Earth' and 'resource-based economy'

Even the most blind-sighted cannot deny the Earth has a carrying capacity. It's quite a lot more than what we're handling now though. If you don't understand that, ask a farmer or an agriculturist. You can only grow a certain amount of something in one area in a certain period of time. Ofcourse with hydroponics we can pretty much grow as much as we WANT to.

[BrentonEccles]

What I think you'll find is that in India they have a caste system - in fact, very similar to the British - one-on-one, even.

You'll also find, if you really delve into your history, that the aristocratic families only decided to train the masses to read/write because they had to be indoctrinated to a certain degree and 'programmed' to a certain degree to perform menial tasks. You know, working in a factory does not only involve picking up a hammer and slamming it on screws - at a certain point, you have to be able to 'interpret' written word and put it into practice.

That is why they decided to 'educate' you. But they only gave you so much as you needed to 'know'. And the rest that you did not need to know, they either did not provide you or, because of the basic Pavlovian need to reward yourself (by going shopping, making love to the opposite sex, playing, watching a movie, playing a videogame), you would not care to look into.

Well, do you read me advocating educational institutions as the means to create an educated society. No. Our schools are job-makers.

Ah, but in my utopian world-view, "organization" is voluntary and not planned/orchestrated/dictated by some wiser committee. "Voluntary" being the operative word, and essential for liberty to flourish. Voluntarism is the secret vote that starves bad ideas and keeps great ideas alive.

Well, on first thought I was actually about to agree with you on some level. But it's not voluntary. In monetary economics, -someone- (whether locally, nationally, centrally) has to create the money. It's an obligation, and it's just up to who wants to do it (banking families, etc,). Someone HAS to protect the interests of the nations (against that of other nations, fighting for resources, etc,.) because there is an inherent imbalance. In a resource-based economy that voluntary organisation would be exactly how we'd operate, but not just with idiots contributing to the betterment of their fellow human beings. In our society, you can get into politics through really good rhetoric, promise of change, and no one really notices after the euphoria-generating elections if you are or not (except for maybe a sophisticated few). In a resource-based economy, you would profit the society through education because if you know something (and I'm not talking rote) you can apply what you know to society and learn continually through experience rather than just saying "well I think this/that." How much more beneficial that would be.

[Jackson Holly]

Jackson:

Why are the Z People so sold on continuing on the path of ever-higher technology? Isn't it taking us down a path of de-humanization and self-destruction?

Brenton:

Absolutely, but it's not science and technology. It's the abuse and misuse of it. You can take an airplane and use it to fly people across the country, or you can take it and put chemical sprays over a city. It's up to ALL of us, to decide what to do with it.

You can take a Hydrogen Bomb and or you can destroy a huge section of the Earth with it.

It seems to me that the prevailing human attitude is, that if we CAN do it we MUST do it.

If we CAN create and manipulate life on a molecular level, we MUST do so.

If we CAN control human brain activity ... control minds ... we MUST do so.

etc.

I firmly believe that the height of human achievement was some time well before the Industrial Revolution.

A literate, civil society, agrarian based, sea going and horse-powered, with a self-regulating population size in each area/country sounds good to me.

High technology ... who needs it?

[squarepusher]

BrentonEccles:

Have you read Jacques Ellul's 'The Technological Society'. Do you know the difference between 'science'/'technology' and 'technique'? 'Technique' is not the utilization of 'technology', before you respond.

Basically, you do not seem to be aware of 'technique''s ability to enslave or degrade the human individual. In fact, I see no mention of it at all. You seem to buy into the falsehood that 'technology' frees mankind. History tells otherwise.

Also, why do you consistently avoid the 'larger powerstructure'? When I mention western financing of the Soviet Union, you completely ignore it. When I mention that Lucis Trust is a NGO that has special UN consultative rights, you just sidestep it (first I need not be concerned about Theosophists because Blavatsky is dead - then when I explain how relevant it is you just sidebrush it).

Basically, you will NEVER be allowed to build your Venus Project. That is, unless you have foundation backing or you basically pursue the same goals as the United Nations.

Also, VERY convenient that in conjunction with the New York Times' glowing review of the latest Zeitgest conference, a CFR report is published where the same 'technical' utopia is proposed in detailed bookform.

Here is the link for you - just in case you didn't 'know'. (I'm sure Peter Joseph does - wonder what his 'real alias' is, and which foundations are backing him?)

http://www.cfr.org/publication/18248/

[BrentonEccles]

It seems to me that the prevailing human attitude is, that if we CAN do it we MUST do it.

It's profitable, and protects our current structure of fighting against one another over scarce resources. Albert Einstein was PAYED to split the hydrogen atom, I'm sure you're aware.

Basically, you do not seem to be aware of 'technique''s ability to enslave or degrade the human individual. In fact, I see no mention of it at all.

I'm aware of it, and very simply, we simply need to chose to move away from that. It's our social structures that are causing this stagnation of technology to be used appropriately.

why do you consistently avoid the 'larger powerstructure'?

Well, to be quite honest, because they're not relevant. Their power will only last as long as we allow it to, and it really saddens me that you allow yourself to feel so enslaved.
Lucius Trust, The United Nations, Royal families, the Rockefellers - they're all just groups pushing in their own self interest. They get their power from the social institutions, not from some devil or any other spiritual notion, and all it will take is for us to stop supporting this. Why do I say that so confidently? Quite simply because once we have a wave of people all over the world reorienting themselves away from this, there is no stopping us. They'll quite literally have to create some sort of grassroots army against us, and it wont work because people are not that stupid.
Hah, it's just quite saddening that so many people feel powerless. It's such a common statement to say "What can we do?" It's really quite simple - change. Humanity has changed all throughout history, and just because people are ingrained into this system doesn't mean we're stuck. Other animals are reoriented in their social structures within a generation, and we have no excuse.

From what I've read of that CFR publication so far (unfortunately I'm very busy writing to, phoning and otherwise contacting organisations about the movement so my time to sit and read something in a sitting is limited sometimes) what is generally advocated is what I'd call "Serfdom" which Wikipedia says is: Serfdom is the socio-economic status of unfree peasants under feudalism.
So basically, Corporations continuing to dominate the resources we need to survive. This is done through our current social structures, and that's easy to see.

[Jackson Holly]

Everybody ... please take a few minutes and check out my earlier post if you haven't already:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=62764.msg567617#msg567617

[trailhound]

In monetary economics, -someone- (whether locally, nationally, centrally) has to create the money. It's an obligation, and it's just up to who wants to do it (banking families, etc,). Someone HAS to protect the interests of the nations (against that of other nations, fighting for resources, etc,.) because there is an inherent imbalance.

See this is the crux of it. You dont HAVE to let people CREATE money. Thats why we are talking sound money. You either have it or you dont. Creating money should be illegal. I agree with you based on that understanding, if we are going to let somebody create money hell i think i might go with the Z boys before that trip...oh yeah thats the shitty trip we are currently on

[squarepusher]

Well, to be quite honest, because they're not relevant. Their power will only last as long as we allow it to, and it really saddens me that you allow yourself to feel so enslaved.

Lucius Trust, The United Nations, Royal families, the Rockefellers - they're all just groups pushing in their own self interest. They get their power from the social institutions, not from some devil or any other spiritual notion, and all it will take is for us to stop supporting this. Why do I say that so confidently? Quite simply because once we have a wave of people all over the world reorienting themselves away from this, there is no stopping us. They'll quite literally have to create some sort of grassroots army against us, and it wont work because people are not that stupid.

The moment you will declare your new utopia (let's call it the 'Venus Republic' - let's give it a name) and you assemble your George Washingtons and Benjamin Franklins, the United Nations will declare you as a rogue state and send in UN peacekeepers to get rid of you. You know the concept of 'free trade', right, as espoused by John Dee on behalf of Her Majesty, The Queen, right? "Free trade' is when every economy has been assimilated into the 'Commonwealth of Nations'.

Here is where I get suspicious of the whole affair. It's almost as if you seem blissfully unaware that your whole plan could NEVER work (I read above that you're busy on the phone promoting the agenda - so obviously you're a busy worker bee) without the tacid approval of the powers that be. It could just NEVER work - the power structure as it exists today does not ALLOW a Jacque Fresco or a Peter Joseph to go off on their own and found some new socialist utopia.

Unless - UNLESS - it has been authorized. Then, indeed, the 'power structure' do not matter indeed - because they are behind you. So it would make sense for 'Peter Joseph' to go off into la-la land and not address the 'power structures' (how are you going to establish your new society without sparking off a massive war with the current 'global' establishment?) - get people  behind the utopian 'ideal', do not bother to explain it in great depth or how we'll get there.

Lenin worked like that too - 'we will win by slogans'. That about sums it up to a tee.

[BrentonEccles]

Everybody ... please take a few minutes and check out my earlier post if you haven't already:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=62764.msg567617#msg567617

Oh, I was hoping someone would address this. You should be aware that Peter has addressed a few times (on live radio, at the Artivist awards themselves) that he doesn't support Pertrobas -- the festival was merely a good event to get the ball rolling, so to speak. I can understand the concern though, many of us acted with a bit of disgust when we realised this - but basically it's just Peter using a good event for publicity. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm pretty sure Peter addressed it in the first radio show he did, listen to that if you want.

Or see this thread; http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=3&func=view&catid=7&id=51603

[Jackson Holly]

Jackson:

It seems to me that the prevailing human attitude is, that if we CAN do it we MUST do it.

Brenton:

It's profitable, and protects our current structure of fighting against one another over scarce resources. Albert Einstein was PAYED to split the hydrogen atom, I'm sure you're aware.

I'm sorry ... not following you.

War is ALWAYS engineered by elite families for their own aggrandizement and to further their agendas of control across generations.

 ... but I am glad that the Z PEOPLE have figured out how to do away with war by giving everybody everything. Why didn't I think of that?

[BrentonEccles]

See this is the crux of it. You dont HAVE to let people CREATE money. Thats why we are talking sound money. You either have it or you dont. Creating money should be illegal. I agree with you based on that understanding, if we are going to let somebody create money hell i think i might go with the Z boys before that trip...oh yeah thats the shitty trip we are currently on

I know that. But still, if you're living in any form of monetary economic system ... money of some form will still be created. It actually sounds like a great idea, but if we we're to put it into practice today it simply wouldn't work. People would have no idea how to adjust, we'd have to absolutely revert how we go about the allocation of goods and services and as I've said -- poverty would skyrocket as a result.
It's just not workable in a society like ours, or a resource-based economy, where technology is so heavily used to improve life. It's asking for us to go back in history, really to something so romantic (and it really does sound great) but it's not logical today.

without the tacid approval of the powers that be.

You're operating on the idea that they'll maintain power and control. They will not, if they cannot maintain their structures efficiently.

you assemble your George Washingtons and Benjamin Franklins, the United Nations will declare you as a rogue state and send in UN peacekeepers to get rid of you.

A resource-based global economy will not work like that. We could do a test-city like that, in some ways, but it will fail before it starts if we're going to rely on paper declarations.

You need to recognise that with collapse, comes their loss of control.