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

[Scarecrow]

Just found this Site & it has some very very interesting Ideas on it, especially "Resource-Based Economy" and how that would work. Yes they talk about Globalization but in the CORRECT Open way for the benefit of the species. Anyway here is the link, look over it & discuss it here.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[zeke105]

From the website:

"ZEITGEIST: ADDENDUM IS IN THE PROCESS OF
UPLOADING. IT IS TAKING LONGER THAN WE
EXPECTED. PLEASE HOLD TIGHT."

 

[creat3d]

It's here folks!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

[Matthew]

It's here folks!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

Just finished watching it. I thought it was quite thought provoking. One thing I like about it is that I feel empowered rather than hopeless after watching it, unlike Endgame. Not to knock Endgame because I think it's great.

[Veracious]

This is a very powerful film that resonated strongly with me.  It attempts to go deep below the surface of all of modern society's problems and seek out the root causes.  Certainly this isn't something that one can do thoroughly or exhaustively in a 120 minute presentation, but for the purposes of film, I think Zeitgeist Addendum does it better than any other film I care to recall.  Of course, many of the films that those of us in the truth movement are familiar with are more specialised, focusing on more specific issues in greater detail, such as 9/11 or the incumbent global elite.  I think this film says out loud something that we all feel... that our system of civilisation is more broken than we would like to admit... that simply electing 'the good guys' into the same old political system won't change a thing... that prosecuting and overthrowing the global elite by itself will only leave a void for others to fill... and even returning to a non-fiat currency will not cure us of greed, corporatism, and slavery, as righteous as it may be per se.

I don't think this movie attempts to force a particular new belief system on the viewer (although 'money is the root of all evil' is a fairly blatant theme), but rather challenges the viewer to break down the walls of their current belief system and be prepared to re-evaluate everything they have taken for granted (because society has indoctrinated them thusly), and value truth, rationalism and unconditional love above all else.  Some will criticise ZA for its anti-theistic stance (though in my estimation, if you have accepted the other values of the film, to hold tightly to your indoctrinated theism is to court with hypocrisy), and some for its apparent idealistic utopianism and technophilia... but the film does not ask you to ascribe to some doctrine, nor does it threaten you with eternal damnation/salvation if you do not act in a certain way.  ZA represents another point in the evolution of philosophical thought... that which stems from knowledge... that which stems from experience, which grows increasingly richer in our age... an experience of the societal mechanics that humans have constructed and how those mechanics have behaved.

Though many of our problems do stem from genetically pre-determined behavioural traits (to a degree that ZA regrettably ignores), one of the messages in this film is that most of us grossly underestimate the extent to which they stem from post-natal cultivation.  It is the challenge of modern man to understand that which is primal, emotional and real, and that which is indoctrinated by society, and to separate and manage them in such a way that the latter becomes fluid, and can assume new forms, in the pursuit of a better condition of existence for life in our world.  The alternative is that we accept some or all of our indoctrinated beliefs as immutable and inevitable ("oh, but there will always be wars, and criminals, and greed"), and effectively condemn ourselves to misery and self-annihilation, perhaps with an empty promise to ourselves of vindication for somehow being right about the whole thing.

One aspect of the film in particular that struck a chord with me is the reminder that only technology can elevate the human existence beyond primitive, tribal conditions.  This is not a statement that all technology is good, or that technology will always be wielded to do good, but it simply asks us to examine our lives and realise that when the rubber meets the road, it is the technicians and their technology (and we are all technicians to some degree) that enable the quality of life we take for granted.  Money doesn't build bridges or computers or microwave ovens... people do.  Many might argue that you can't build something without money... well this film argues that you can't build something without real resources... indeed, with resources, technical understanding, and human effort, ANYTHING is possible.

ZA certainly begs for more detail and philosophical discourse, but it is somewhat pragmatic, and has some practical suggestions to offer at its conclusion.  While it could be accused of espousing utopian ideals somewhat recklessly, I think its real message is simply this: we can do a lot better, and we can start by abandoning, on an individual by individual basis, the indoctrinated notion that our current societal mechanics are the best or only means through which to achieve that betterment.  And to anyone who thinks that such change needn't come at the expense of beliefs or metaphysical constructs that they feel comforted, justified or vindicated by... think again.

Films such as ZA are an excellent means of provoking critical, philosophical discussion amongst academic institutions and the general populace, and for that reason in particular I will be encouraging friends to watch it.

[Dig]

Although the last 2 parts of the first movie and the first part of this movie are worthwhile...

The plan for this high budget, agenda driven "documentary" is clear...

Promote a New World Order Scientific Technocracy as Alex Jones has explained in End Game.

NWO has hijacked US liberty and free market capitalism and corrupted it to a point where such an insane idea as "resource based systems" are actually thought of as a rational solution.

"Resource based systems" are at their heart feudalistic.  One person owns all of the resources and distributes them as they see fitting.

South Park creators (very knowledgeable of future utopian plans) exposed the complete fallacy of the "technology solution" for the future. Shifting from religious ideals to scientific ideals will only create new groups of scientific cults that will also kill to convert people into technology thinking beings.

Exposed in this movie is excellent information on the economic hitman and information on energy production. And many of their suggestions for social transformation are very good. Some of the philisophical stuff is interesting as well.

But the agenda is clear...

Sovereignty, individual liberty, sound money, and religion have no place in the future they are promoting.

[Dok]

I have to agree the movie promotes a one world society. Well who's gonna rule this society and who is going to distribute the wealth. Theirs a reason why all the hippy communes of the 60's failed. These were all resource based little communities, their biggest problems was that when someone wanted something outside of the community they had no way to get it, and if one person got something new then everyone needed something new too, hence communism. Also in a resource based society every one has to work for the common good of everybody else hence socialism. Nobody is going to work or do anything else for that matter with out getting something out of it. Even in a barter system you need goods to barter with. Yes we could build schools and hospitals all over the world, but who is going to cut the limber mine the ore? People will not do it for free, we work to support our families, you still need capitalism in a resource based society, there would be no way around it. Which is why it all ready exists and is simply called communism.

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general. The communist movement has attempted to produce a communist society by setting up political parties, which in some cases have become governments. These attempts have never produced a communist society, and have frequently led to totalitarian states.

With the technology portion, that was all right but still how would you get the technology to the people? Who would make the stuff how would you pay them in a resource society? We already know the communism ones, use slave labor or if you don't work you don't eat ration cards. Utopia's don't exist and never will.

[Banzinator]

i agree with:
-money causes corruption
-fractional reserve banking is bad
-the first zeitgeist movie
-the greenback system was good
-organized religion is selfserving and many religions are myths constructed to control the peasant class

i disagree with:
-we should make a cashless society
-it will be a technocracy
-there will be no religions
-after this awakening, everything will be fine and dandy forever and all evil will be gone

is it just me or does the venus project sound like new world order?  this is exactly what the new world order promises [lies] to bring...

don't get me wrong, the promises that it makes would be awesome if they could be carried out, but who the hell is going to carry it out?  who is going manage it?  who is going to distribute the food?  abolishing religions IS a religion... so they want to make a one world religion... one world government [they claim there will be no government but that in itself is a type]

the greenback system from the civil war is what we need not this.  no the greenback system would not abolish all evil and unjust in the world, but it is realistic and trustworthy...

this venus project is highly suspicious, even if its intentions are good, and follows the new world order by textbook definition
NWO promises utopia too...

[Matthew]

Here's more info on The Venus Project from The Venus Project:

The Venus Project part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1gZxmIDKw

The Venus Project part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsaSFonaa8Y

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

You'd think all of their videos would be for free on Google.

[Dig]

Here's more info on The Venus Project from The Venus Project:

The Venus Project part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1gZxmIDKw

The Venus Project part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsaSFonaa8Y

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

You'd think all of their videos would be for free on Google.

It is a pay as you go program.

It makes no sense that the "Venus  Project" is required for a piece of technology.

Just sell the technology to the people.

[Novus Ordo]

This is a very powerful film that resonated strongly with me.  It attempts to go deep below the surface of all of modern society's problems and seek out the root causes.  Certainly this isn't something that one can do thoroughly or exhaustively in a 120 minute presentation, but for the purposes of film, I think Zeitgeist Addendum does it better than any other film I care to recall.  Of course, many of the films that those of us in the truth movement are familiar with are more specialised, focusing on more specific issues in greater detail, such as 9/11 or the incumbent global elite.  I think this film says out loud something that we all feel... that our system of civilisation is more broken than we would like to admit... that simply electing 'the good guys' into the same old political system won't change a thing... that prosecuting and overthrowing the global elite by itself will only leave a void for others to fill... and even returning to a non-fiat currency will not cure us of greed, corporatism, and slavery, as righteous as it may be per se.

I don't think this movie attempts to force a particular new belief system on the viewer (although 'money is the root of all evil' is a fairly blatant theme), but rather challenges the viewer to break down the walls of their current belief system and be prepared to re-evaluate everything they have taken for granted (because society has indoctrinated them thusly), and value truth, rationalism and unconditional love above all else.  Some will criticise ZA for its anti-theistic stance (though in my estimation, if you have accepted the other values of the film, to hold tightly to your indoctrinated theism is to court with hypocrisy), and some for its apparent idealistic utopianism and technophilia... but the film does not ask you to ascribe to some doctrine, nor does it threaten you with eternal damnation/salvation if you do not act in a certain way.  ZA represents another point in the evolution of philosophical thought... that which stems from knowledge... that which stems from experience, which grows increasingly richer in our age... an experience of the societal mechanics that humans have constructed and how those mechanics have behaved.

Though many of our problems do stem from genetically pre-determined behavioural traits (to a degree that ZA regrettably ignores), one of the messages in this film is that most of us grossly underestimate the extent to which they stem from post-natal cultivation.  It is the challenge of modern man to understand that which is primal, emotional and real, and that which is indoctrinated by society, and to separate and manage them in such a way that the latter becomes fluid, and can assume new forms, in the pursuit of a better condition of existence for life in our world.  The alternative is that we accept some or all of our indoctrinated beliefs as immutable and inevitable ("oh, but there will always be wars, and criminals, and greed"), and effectively condemn ourselves to misery and self-annihilation, perhaps with an empty promise to ourselves of vindication for somehow being right about the whole thing.

One aspect of the film in particular that struck a chord with me is the reminder that only technology can elevate the human existence beyond primitive, tribal conditions.  This is not a statement that all technology is good, or that technology will always be wielded to do good, but it simply asks us to examine our lives and realise that when the rubber meets the road, it is the technicians and their technology (and we are all technicians to some degree) that enable the quality of life we take for granted.  Money doesn't build bridges or computers or microwave ovens... people do.  Many might argue that you can't build something without money... well this film argues that you can't build something without real resources... indeed, with resources, technical understanding, and human effort, ANYTHING is possible.

ZA certainly begs for more detail and philosophical discourse, but it is somewhat pragmatic, and has some practical suggestions to offer at its conclusion.  While it could be accused of espousing utopian ideals somewhat recklessly, I think its real message is simply this: we can do a lot better, and we can start by abandoning, on an individual by individual basis, the indoctrinated notion that our current societal mechanics are the best or only means through which to achieve that betterment.  And to anyone who thinks that such change needn't come at the expense of beliefs or metaphysical constructs that they feel comforted, justified or vindicated by... think again.

Films such as ZA are an excellent means of provoking critical, philosophical discussion amongst academic institutions and the general populace, and for that reason in particular I will be encouraging friends to watch it.

good post thanks.

[Matthew]

Wow, guess how old, Jacque Fresco (in the movie), the guy from the Venus Project is?

He'll be 93 in March 2009.

[Dok]

Communization is the process of the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production, which, in societies dominated by the capitalist mode of production, are "owned" by individual capitalists, states, or other collective bodies. In some versions of communist theory, communization is understood as the transfer of ownership from private capitalist hands to the collective hands of producers, whether in the form of co-operative enterprises or communes, or through the mediation of a state or federation of workers' councils on a local, national, or global scale. In these accounts, communization means that the multitude or humanity as a whole, directly or indirectly, takes over the tasks of planning the production of goods for use (not for exchange) and according to socially-determined needs. People would then have free access to those goods rather than exchanging labor for money and then exchanging labor for goods as in less advanced phases of socialism.

The Paris Commune was moving toward such an arrangement, but could not immediately abolish wages. While communization was made famous and viable by the Paris Commune, it has roots in systems such as the Russian obshchina and the various forms of so-called primitive communism. A variety of models have been proposed for communist administration of production and distribution (centralist, federalist, etc.), but all of the latter programs insist that, if class and class struggle are to be truly abolished and humanity to be truly liberated from wage-slavery, neither the means of production nor the products themselves may be "owned" by anyone (whether individuals or collective bodies), and goods must be distributed entirely according to "need" as defined democratically (not according to amount of labor input, for example). The quality and quantity of minimal compulsory labor, moreover, would be determined for each individual through democratic planning, with the goal of eventually dissolving the distinction between "work" and "play" so that productive labor becomes entirely voluntary.

Note that communization in this latter sense was never attempted by either Social Democratic or Leninist "Communist" regimes (USSR, PRC, etc.), although it has been tried on various occasions - not only in the Paris Commune, but also in Left Anarchist societies such as Makhnovist Ukraine, in anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, and by some Chinese Ultra-Left tendencies during the so-called "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution." This is not necessarily to denounce Social Democracy or Leninism, which arguably improved life for many people relative to free-market capitalism; it is merely to point out the difference between communization and the various forms of historical "socialism".

In response to liberalist critics such as Friedrich von Hayek, who argue that only a market in which property is defended by a state can adequately satisfy people's needs, communists point out that:

humans, like other animals, survived and in some cases thrived for millennia through communal production and distribution, even without modern technology;
modern technology makes communal production and distribution much easier, even on a global scale;
the market, far from satifying people's needs, has in fact functioned primarily as an ideological fiction covering up the state-supported violent capitalist expropriation of formerly communal resources, leaving people who formerly lived on those resources forced to sell themselves for a fraction of the wealth they produce (which is appropriated by capitalists as "profit"), a fraction usually insufficient to satisfy their needs - so the "labor market" is not really a market, but neither is the "market" of products, since capitalist firms maintain monopolies through state support (intellectuals property rights, etc.);
according to Marxist analysis, the capitalist mode of production cannot avoid generating various forms of economic crisis, such as the Great Depression, and in fact, because capitalist accumulation has now saturated every corner of the globe, we have already entered a state of permanent crisis of which so-called terrorism and the so-called War on Terrorism are only two of the first symptoms; according to this theory, communization is the only way to avoid humanity's self-destruction through either ecological disaster or global civil war.

Wow, where did I here all this....

[KingNeil]

This second version is ridiculously good.

[InfoTruth]

It's here folks!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

Thanks for the link! No suprise there are already people calling it a pro nwo film.

[Dok]

Thanks for the link! No suprise there are already people calling it a pro nwo film.

Id say more Pro Communism if you take both films together as they have done.

[EvadingGrid]

I am not going to watch that film.

[KingNeil]

The thing about the court case of the guy who got to keep his home because the Fed's money was created out of nothing is ASTOUNDING. Watch that bit, watch the film and stop bitching about religion.

And I love how they put in the bit about the economic hit men.

Sorry, I'm watching this for the first time right now. This is somewhat of a running commentary.

[Dok]

1st tenent of Communism, abolish Religion. 

[Wanted]

Thanks for the link! No suprise there are already people calling it a pro nwo film.

Gonna watch it right now. Oh so now if it doesn't agree with your religion its communist>?

[Dok]

Gonna watch it right now. Oh so now if it doesn't agree with your religion its communist>?

Watch and see, ive already seen it.

[Dig]

This is a very powerful film that resonated strongly with me.  It attempts to go deep below the surface of all of modern society's problems and seek out the root causes.  Certainly this isn't something that one can do thoroughly or exhaustively in a 120 minute presentation, but for the purposes of film, I think Zeitgeist Addendum does it better than any other film I care to recall.  Of course, many of the films that those of us in the truth movement are familiar with are more specialised, focusing on more specific issues in greater detail, such as 9/11 or the incumbent global elite.  I think this film says out loud something that we all feel... that our system of civilisation is more broken than we would like to admit... that simply electing 'the good guys' into the same old political system won't change a thing... that prosecuting and overthrowing the global elite by itself will only leave a void for others to fill... and even returning to a non-fiat currency will not cure us of greed, corporatism, and slavery, as righteous as it may be per se.

I don't think this movie attempts to force a particular new belief system on the viewer (although 'money is the root of all evil' is a fairly blatant theme), but rather challenges the viewer to break down the walls of their current belief system and be prepared to re-evaluate everything they have taken for granted (because society has indoctrinated them thusly), and value truth, rationalism and unconditional love above all else.  Some will criticise ZA for its anti-theistic stance (though in my estimation, if you have accepted the other values of the film, to hold tightly to your indoctrinated theism is to court with hypocrisy), and some for its apparent idealistic utopianism and technophilia... but the film does not ask you to ascribe to some doctrine, nor does it threaten you with eternal damnation/salvation if you do not act in a certain way.  ZA represents another point in the evolution of philosophical thought... that which stems from knowledge... that which stems from experience, which grows increasingly richer in our age... an experience of the societal mechanics that humans have constructed and how those mechanics have behaved.

Though many of our problems do stem from genetically pre-determined behavioural traits (to a degree that ZA regrettably ignores), one of the messages in this film is that most of us grossly underestimate the extent to which they stem from post-natal cultivation.  It is the challenge of modern man to understand that which is primal, emotional and real, and that which is indoctrinated by society, and to separate and manage them in such a way that the latter becomes fluid, and can assume new forms, in the pursuit of a better condition of existence for life in our world.  The alternative is that we accept some or all of our indoctrinated beliefs as immutable and inevitable ("oh, but there will always be wars, and criminals, and greed"), and effectively condemn ourselves to misery and self-annihilation, perhaps with an empty promise to ourselves of vindication for somehow being right about the whole thing.

One aspect of the film in particular that struck a chord with me is the reminder that only technology can elevate the human existence beyond primitive, tribal conditions.  This is not a statement that all technology is good, or that technology will always be wielded to do good, but it simply asks us to examine our lives and realise that when the rubber meets the road, it is the technicians and their technology (and we are all technicians to some degree) that enable the quality of life we take for granted.  Money doesn't build bridges or computers or microwave ovens... people do.  Many might argue that you can't build something without money... well this film argues that you can't build something without real resources... indeed, with resources, technical understanding, and human effort, ANYTHING is possible.

ZA certainly begs for more detail and philosophical discourse, but it is somewhat pragmatic, and has some practical suggestions to offer at its conclusion.  While it could be accused of espousing utopian ideals somewhat recklessly, I think its real message is simply this: we can do a lot better, and we can start by abandoning, on an individual by individual basis, the indoctrinated notion that our current societal mechanics are the best or only means through which to achieve that betterment.  And to anyone who thinks that such change needn't come at the expense of beliefs or metaphysical constructs that they feel comforted, justified or vindicated by... think again.

Films such as ZA are an excellent means of provoking critical, philosophical discussion amongst academic institutions and the general populace, and for that reason in particular I will be encouraging friends to watch it.

Is this being posted randomly all over?

"Though many of our problems do stem from genetically pre-determined behavioural traits"

Really?

Is that a fact?

And that non-fiat money (sound money) still is the root of man's problems?  I guess we need a resource management system.  That would limit evil, sure.  Both movies do open the door for questioning things like 9/11 politicians, fiat currency, corporatism, and state sponsored religion... but there is an obvious disconnect with true criminals, sound money, free market capitalism, and freedom of religion.

They pick an obvious problem with a pilar of a social structure and say "see the entire structure must be demolished."

With 9/11 they put forth the idea that their will never be crime and punishment (the constitution is quite clear on this important pillar of society)

With fiat currency and fractional reserve system, they say all money is bad (again a pillar of our constitutional republic-backed by gold or silver)

With corporatism, they suggest that all free market capitalism is bad (FMC created this country, and the corruption to corporatism and national socialism is destroying it)

With state sponsored religion, they suggest that all religion is evil (then they suggest that a scientific tecnocracy is preferable, bt a scientific technocracy is just another religion)

The producers are either in on an NWO final solution or are highly misguided by others.

But again, the stuff on the fed, fiat money, fractional reserve, Perkins (econ hit man), alternative energy are excellent and should be cliped off to add to videos like Wake Up Call.  But the overall goal is plainly obvious...scientific technocracy.

[Dig]

Gonna watch it right now. Oh so now if it doesn't agree with your religion its communist>?

Not at all, it does not agree with liberty or freedom of religion.  It also does not agree with soverign states.  Watch it and see, it is pretty obvious.  They do not hide it.  Watch it and then watch EndGame if it is still not clear.

[KingNeil]

1st tenent of Communism, abolish Religion. 

I'm an hour into the movie and it hasn't even mentioned religion. So far this film is better than EndGame.

[Dok]

Well your almost there.

[Dig]

I'm an hour into the movie and it hasn't even mentioned religion. So far this film is better than EndGame.

keep watching

[Novus Ordo]

Dont be afraid.

http://orangutanfoundation.wildlifedirect.org/files/2008/03/violet-with-chain-in-chicken-cage.jpg

[Yurebis]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Horrible ending, just like the first one. Like others said, falls right into the NWO plan.

If I were able to email the author of the movie, I'd tell him that his Utopia sounds great and all, but hey, You're not the one making the decisions on how the technocracy is going to be built.

The ones making the decisions are the elite. And there's simply no way we the people can be able to jump from capitalism to a "resource-based utopia" like that, because we do not own the cutting-edge technology.

We DO NOT OWN that technology. This solution will remain what it is, an unreachable utopia.

This guy should focus not on "rejecting the system". That is stupid. We should think short-term on how to survive this crisis and rid ourselves of the NWO first. Not daydream about robots doing our work for us.

The elite would rather kill all of us before we'd ever reach that "Venus" thing.

[Dok]

All of this utopia and technology made me remeber this article.

http://www.friesian.com/trek.htm

[zeke105]

http://newsx.info/videos/addendum.html

Permanent link for the second Zeitgeist. I will update the page if the movie is removed from google video. -Z

[Geolibertarian]

I watched it last night, and will have to watch it again before I can comment at length on it, but here are my initial thoughts.

The first two parts -- the one that explains how our debt-based money system enslaves people without their realizing it, and the one in which John Perkins explains the corrupt process by which parasitic bankers and criminal corporations essentially assume ownership of developing countries -- are excellent.

The rest of it, though, was flawed in certain respects.

For instance, while it correctly points out the evils of fractional reserve banking, it draws the wrong conclusion from this by asserting that money itself -- or rather the pursuit of it -- is the root cause of humanity's most pressing problems, and that this can some how be magically solved by switching to a moneyless, high-tech society.

To me that's like saying that, because a person's bloodstream has been polluted with a toxic substance, the "solution" is transplant his brain into a bloodless, artificial body. Some might call that transhumanism; I call it bullshit, because the problem, in this example, is not blood itself, but the toxic substance that was injected into it by external forces. The solution, therefore, is to remove the substance (to "detoxify"), while leaving the blood intact.

I think the same basic principle applies both to money and to economic systems generally.

With regard to money, the problem is not money itself, but the fact that it's issued as an evidence of interest-bearing debt expansion instead of as an evidence of interest-free wealth expansion. It is this debt-based aspect of the current system that is toxic, and that makes money a curse to humanity rather than a blessing. A debt-free money system would reverse this trend.

As for the profit-based economy in general, the problem is not the desire to be compensated for the services you provide to others, but the legal framework in which this compensatory process occurs. In short, the problem is not "profit" per se, but profit derived from privilege:

-----------------------------------------------

http://savingcommunities.org/issues/

Privilege

Behind all issues lies the problem of privilege -- legal mechanisms that give some people artificial advantages over others, enabling them to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Political privileges give leverage in the political system, ultimately conferring a political monopoly over others. Economic privileges are similarly leveraged over time into economic monopoly.

Three privileges stand out. The core political privilege is the way we choose leaders. What was supposed to be citizens deliberating and choosing officials to serve them has degenerated into a competition by those who want more and more political power over a largely passive electorate. The economic privileges are a land tenure system that allows some people to monopolize the earth and its resources and a monetary system that lets private institutions lend money that was created out of nothing into circulation.

Other economic privileges include privately owned public utilities, monopoly franchises, over-extended intellectual property laws, subsidies, artificial restrictions on competition, and policies that benefit established businesses to the detriment of potential new competitors.

They tie together because people with economic privileges help those in office keep their political privileges and those in office reciprocate.

[Continued...]

-----------------------------------------------

Just as it's not necessary to eliminate money to eliminate usurious interest, it's not necessary to eliminate profit to eliminate privilege.

I have more points to make, but I'll leave it at that for now.

[zeke105]

I still haven't finished watching it (almost). Gator game came on right toward the end. College football is my only TV vice, but it's hard not to being near the University. -Z

[Dig]

We should think short-term on how to survive this crisis and rid ourselves of the NWO first. Not daydream about robots doing our work for us.

The elite would rather kill all of us before we'd ever reach that "Venus" thing.

AWESOME!!!!

It is like an infomercial selling the new and improved product (the last sections after Perkins).

In all fairness, there are some good suggestions concerning non-violent civil disobedience. But not enough for true empowerment.

[Faxanadu]

"Though many of our problems do stem from genetically pre-determined behavioural traits"

Really?

Is that a fact?

Yes, it is.  Look into the science of psychopathy.  Alan Watt talks about it a great deal.

[Dig]

Yes, it is.  Look into the science of psychopathy.  Alan Watt talks about it a great deal.

The science of psychopathy (at least Alan Watt's take on it) does not stem from pre-determination prior to birth.  At least I could not find it.  But the science of psychopathy is an awesome blurb by Alan Watt.  Thanks for that!

[Donovan]

The elite would rather kill all of us before we'd ever reach that "Venus" thing.

I think you're under the assumption that the elites are dumb.  I think they are clever.

This venus project is probably part of their plan.

Think about it.  Set up a collapse, ensure the current way of life fails, then propose a utopia that people have been dreaming and wishing for (especially if people are in desperation).

Of course they will still be in full control (behind the scenes) like they are now.

But it is interesting.  They know if things dont change and people arent offered something better they will lose all control, which is something they will want to avoid at all cost.

[KingNeil]

Just finished the movie. The bit from an hour in, on energy revolution through geothermal, automated machinery, super-fast trains was amazing. The end part with everyone rejecting the system was equally epic. This is the greatest and most informative movie I've ever seen.

Now, whether or not we can successfully boycott the system is another matter. I think doing this will be incredibly hard, but yes, this movie comes forward brilliantly in every aspect. And for all of those who don't like the concept of rejecting your religion, well, I feel sorry for you. I really do.

[Novus Ordo]

Just finished the movie. The bit from an hour in, on energy revolution through geothermal, automated machinery, super-fast trains was amazing. The end part with everyone rejecting the system was equally epic. This is the greatest and most informative movie I've ever seen.

Now, whether or not we can successfully boycott the system is another matter. I think doing this will be incredibly hard, but yes, this movie comes forward brilliantly in every aspect. And for all of those who don't like the concept of rejecting your religion, well, I feel sorry for you. I really do.

+1

[Stan]

And for all of those who don't like the concept of rejecting your religion, well, I feel sorry for you. I really do.

Thanks.

[ConcordeWarrior]

Thank you for posting the link.
I watched the whole film. I find some parts of it interesting, everything that deals with the monetary system is right.

However, I have some reserve about the "Venus Project". I had a look at their website.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/

Their "philosophy" and ideas are somewhat identical to those of the "Neotech" (or "Pax Neotech" or "Zonpower") movement created by Frank Wallace rejecting religions and the idea of God to replace them with technology as the only saviour of mankind.