My take on Zeitgeist: Addendum and The Venus Project. Please read!

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Hi, I know NONE of you know me, but I've been lurking on Above Top Secret for literally five YEARS. I absolutely love Above Top Secret, even if I don't agree with what everyone says on here -- but then again everyone has so many different opinions and thoughts that it's great.

Anyway, I don't know if I'm posting this on the right board -- and if not I apologize deeply to the moderators and ask them to move it to the RIGHT board.

ANYWAY... I have just watched the second Zeitgeist movie tonight, and I have mixed reviews on it. Especially about The Venus Project. I am very wary on it. Take a look at some things I wrote:

ritualistic.org...

...

So I agreed with this old man from The Venus Project. A free society, no work, no laws, machines do it all for you, everyone is stress free and we all live in harmony away from the terrorist elite that controls everything — WHERE DO I SIGN UP? All though to be perfectly honest, I think what this man was talking about is far too advanced for humans today as they are. Not technology wise, but as a mentality. I don’t really think we can. (Sorry, Obama, it turns out– No We Can’t).

And it wouldn’t be right to force us to. And believe me, I’d fight to bring down this SUPPOSEDLY wonderful society if it was forced upon ANYONE who didn’t want it forced on them. It really started to sound all most communistic in a way. It sounded like they wanted to do away with old values and old beliefs — religious systems, familial values, etc. And that’s not right. That’s what the communist’s tried to do in Russia. That’s what they want to do in the New World Order.

That’s what they did on communes in Israel (known as a Kibbutz) — where the children who grew up there had no constructive family life or parenting or anything.. and it pretty much didn’t work for the children involved. So why do away with traditional families? Why even HINT at it? The old man said how parents indoctrinate their children towards their belief systems…

And he is talking about it as if it’s negative.

This is where I started to get edgy and suspicious with the movie. If you agree with this old man, then you ALSO agree with California’s decision to stop homeschooling — when a LOT of homeschooling is done for religious purposes (check out my post about that here: ritualistic.org... to my "Most Homeschooling in California is banned" post), and you also DISAGREE with Aaron Russo when he speaks negatively about how those at the top of this centuries old pyramid scheme (taking right from Peter Josephs mouth) want your children to go to state funded schools and be indoctrinated with what THEY want your children to be indoctrinated by (and it is usually anti religious — I have seen it with my own two eyes in the school system and the many many schools I have been to).

...


I also mention about The Venus Project that ...

ritualistic.org...

...

I mean, I really wouldn’t doubt if this comes back later in time that The Venus Project was some CIA funded group or experiment — after all, they say Jonestown may have been a CIA experiment. Just remember folks: Just because it SOUNDS pretty, doesn’t mean it is.

This is where critical thinking MUST come into play.

...


Anyway, my article on the second Zeitgeist movie goes on much longer than that, and I'd really like some thoughts from some like minded people -- or even people who disagree! That's fine too.


For more of it, please go here:

ritualistic.org... Zeitgeist: Addendum.

There is a ton more info. and thoughts then just what I posted here.

This post has been edited for grammar and typos and whatnot

[edit on 9-10-2008 by cetta]




 


Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

Thank you for your compliance and understanding.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by kinglizard]




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
You're making it seem like Jaque Fresco will be the one to enforce his project. He never came across that way. You're thinking in a different context - or taking it out of context. He did say it's not perfect but a lot better than what we have now...we will never achieve perfection.

His idea of a resource-based economy is quite extreme...and stems down a utopia that will probably never exist. He even mentioned where our current path is taking us. It also stems down to intelligent management of earth's resources, which may never happen because of scarcity or assumed scarcity, limiting technology (nothing new) and a monetary based economy.

I think the author and Jaque Fresco are in agreement that the root of the institutions, especially religious institutions, is monetary in nature. With this root, we're being held back and will probably never know real freedom.

If this is a CIA funded experiment, it's the best act they've put on yet. The key word in his opinion of religion - division. A division that spreads to the political arena. Our true problems in life are technical, not political - no matter what propaganda hollywood is spewing out about the evil's of technology (like in Eagle Eye).



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
With regard to the family value indoctrination part of the movie, I am pretty sure Jacque Fresco was just trying to explain why people, as a group, resist change. He was talking about why people resist change of the establishment (old values, beliefs, religious systems, and family values) . He states this as a lead up to how governments try to perpetuate a system that keeps them in power and how this leads to corruption. I don't think he wants to do away with our religious systems and beliefs, he only wants to illustrate how it is these systems that keep us from changing our ways. Fresco states that "human behavior is environmentally determined." The behavior that was being discussed at that point in the movie was corruption.

When he was talking about people living in a technology driven society, he never stated that no one would have to work. In fact, he states that just like in the resource based society of the Native American, there were certain tasks that had to be completed, there too would be certain daily tasks that people in a modern resource based society would have to complete. However, he goes on to state that essentially we would not be working a 9-5, meaningless job that robed us of our creativity and growth as thinking human beings. I will give you that the part about "tasks that have to be completed" part does sound a bit communistic, but I would accept that to live in the society that he describes.

I don't know, I will have to watch the movie again as I am still trying to let the ideas he set forth sink in. I would recommend that you do the same in the coming weeks. It was an interesting view of a potential future, one that I believe could possibly be immensely better than the one in which we find ourselves today.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


Thank you so much for replying BluegrassRevolutionary! I didn't think anyone would haha.

Yeah, I do actually plan on watching it again, since I didn't catch the whole "tasks that have to be completed".

But it does seem communistic to me -- and not that communism is bad. When it's natural and not forced onto anyone, like.. wouldn't we say the tribes in Africa that have little contact with the outside world (or didn't for a long time) have a communistic feel to them?

But that's natural and not forced and there's no horrible revolution preceding it. I'm not saying that Fresco's idea of a utopia will be like that either, so please don't think that I am.

But for him to equate or put into the same bubble peoples "religious systems" with the same things that are broken in this world -- That's a very scary thing.

How does he propose to change it? What does he want to do about it?

But yes, I probably will be re-watching it sooner or later.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Hmm.. also I'd just like to see I see that someone posted Anonymously to this thread whenever I make a reply, but I do not see it on the main forum page. I may have been lurking ATS for a very, very long time, but I am new to the posting on it. So I'm sorry to the Anonymous poster, but I'm confused as to what's going on, and as soon as I see your post, I will respond to it.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by cetta]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I don't think Fresco was suggesting that we would have no free will in such a society or that we would be "made" to do anything we didn't want to do. We'd likely have a list of options presented to us, based upon our exisiting skills and talents and would maybe sign up to do a few of them in exchange for getting all the food and basics we need plus our lovely house, clothes, tranport and etc...all for free.

Look at what money has done to this world since recorded history, look what it's done to many people !! Look how it the main driving force for most people who have to go and work. It's a constant pressure in ones head every day - bills, rent/mortgage, food, clothes, running a vehicle, paying back debts and loans, going on holidays, and huge numbers of humankind can't afford even the basics in life let alone any extras while others kill themselves or others over money or the NEED for money to pay this that or the other, relationships and families break down due to financial pressures, people lose their minds over money problems and so on and on and on...money does more harm than good.

The vision of society he presents brought tears to my eyes to be honest. No system is EVER going to be perfect or please all of the people but THAT system would unify man in many new ways, it would feed , clothe and house every person on the planet eventually, it would give people back their time instead of them being chained to a clocking in card for 50 years and it would also respect the environment in every conceivable way. It would solve many many world problems and free man to focus on what is beyond this world....the stars, the universe....huge leaps and bounds coud be made in respect of space science and exploration. I could go on and on but won't.
It's a BEAUTIFUL and lofty idea as far as I'm concerned, I would welcome such a world with tears of JOY but if it freaks you out a bit, i wouldn't worry yourself too much because i just can't see it happening on the mass scale envisioned for a couple of hundred years, by which time we will hopefully have evolved more so can handle it all better. And sadly, as wonderful as the idea is I just don't know if we WILL embrace it as a species unless and until a huge shift in global consciousness occurs .

To my mind, beliefs should remain personal and private. You can't have a peaceful, unified world with religious doctrine in the picture, we have seen what chaos and dissent that creates as there are thousands of variations on what is "the truth", it's INSANE - history is to be learnt from, not repeated over and over. Religion DIVIDES man, it never has and never will UNIFY man on a global level. People should be left to believe what they want to believe but not to spread the virus of religion, I'd be TOTALLY up for a global ban on all public displays of religious worship and sales of religious texts and so forth. Maybe there could just be a few copies in libraries as reference texts but a ban on all printing of further texts and a ban on forming clique groups of worship that divide people up into little camps who are pitted against one another due to their different beliefs and ideologies.

We don't need religion to be spiritual creatures and I'd love to be around to see what effects a 100 years of religious suppression would have on world society....I can already feel the peace and see alot less BLOOD

[edit on 9/10/08 by cosmicpixie]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by cosmicpixie
 


First of all, thank you for responding cosmicpixie.

But... I'm sitting here APPALLED... you would be up for a ban on religious texts and public displays of religion...? We don't need to be religious creatures to be spiritual -- no, I never said that and I'm not even DEFENDING religion. Just a person or peoples rights to it. Religion and spirituality are also two different things. I do not personally agree with RELIGION, but as I said in my post that I lined to above, people shouldn't just fight for their interests but freedom as well.

What does freedom mean to you? ...

Also, you can't freely practice a religion if you keep quiet about it. I know of one example: The Bible. Spread the Word of God around, etc. If this is one of the commandments, one of the rules, one of your duties as a Christ believer, you SHOULD. Or at least should be allowed to.

I'm not saying that these beliefs are right or wrong, but I am saying that people have a RIGHT to these beliefs. And it shouldn't be stifled in ANY way. ... And then it hits me again: You want a ban on religious books and religious practices in public...

That would be something else. Imagine the explosion on ATS from that... Lol.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by cetta]

[edit on 9-10-2008 by cetta]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I don't believe he said in the film you had to do work. But the future he was depicting was quite high tech by our standards, or at least by our known science. But in the thread about this film, I brought up numerously that for over 10,000 years in the Americas, natives already lived in a resource based community, without money. Obviously we have more technology, that we not only wish to preserve, but to advance. However the original in North America was real, practical, and lasting. While technology continues to improve, our need to contribute to the overall system would continue to shrink, but once up and running, the need to for able bodied adults to contribute would be small, leaving time to truly develop ourselves and interests. From our interests, be they artistic, design, inventive, we would contribute our best creative concepts open source to the world. There would be groups or guilds organized that supplied the various tools needed to learn a variety of skills. Its doable. The past has proven this already.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by mystiq]

[edit on 9-10-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


That's all well and good and I do not disagree with any of that. Sign me up with all of that. That sounds absolutely wonderful to me. But can't we have that and still have our religions in tact?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Oh here is the Anonymous poster! Hello.


post by Anonymous ATS

I think the author and Jaque Fresco are in agreement that the root of the institutions, especially religious institutions, is monetary in nature. With this root, we're being held back and will probably never know real freedom.


Religious institutions? Yes. They are. But why not leave religions and the faiths themselves, and the people who follow it, who love it, who have the right (presently) to worship as they choose -- and to follow these religious institutions as they choose.

Mostly people who follow the religion are funding the religious institutions -- and if it's their right to follow a religion, as it should be, or else we'd be Communist China telling people what they can worship and what they can't -- then what does this have to do with the Federal Reserve?

Also Fresco seemed very INTOLERANT with religion as a whole -- at least he came off that way to ME. That intolerance of a man who seems to be fed up with the supposed intolerance of others VIA their beliefs and "indoctrination" seemed very...

..Hypocritical and scary.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
You seem surprised that the addendum to Zeitgeist would suggest we have a society without religion. Anyone who has watched Zeitgeist knows that the very first part explains how our religions are control devices, and they've been using the same story since the beginning of time. A "debunking" of religion, if you will. So why the shock?

Also, I think it should be criminal that parents indoctrinate their children with their own religious beliefs. If, as an adult someone decides to be a Christian/Jew/Muslim that is one thing, however conditioning little tots to worship something they can't understand is disgusting. The way it is set-up now for most Christian denominations you become a member of the church around 12-14. Thankfully at this age I had the fortitude to tell my mother she would have to tie me up and put me in the trunk of the car and drag me into church to get me to go back. Not all kids do, however.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I've sat and contemplated the whole religious thing for the past 18 or so years. I've read alot, researched alot and observed alot. I've even BEEN THROUGH the religious thing as part of my own little journey. Believe me, it's not a comment I made lightly. I said what I said because I have thought long and hard about it. Sometimes, answers are simple even when we don't like the answer. The problem is, religion does not work to UNITE the world , it does the exact opposite. We cannot have a unified world and loving brotherhood of man while religion exists. This is an obvious fact - not ONE religion has made the world a peaceful place of togetherness , it DOES NOT WORK !!! When there's a problem , fix it. Religion causes endless problems in the world so solution = get rid of it. It's full of illusions, half truths and misrepresented facts , I fail to see how such a virus of lies and imaginings mixed in with some gems of truth can uplift and unite humanity ?? It's done the opposite. It's a DARK force in this world.

I'm not looking for people to agree with me and to be honest I haven't got the inclination to sit here defending my opinion. Yes, it's a radical stance but anyway this thread isn't about banning religion, it's a dicussion of the Venus project . So if any of you take offence to my opinion, I'm sorry about that but I don't want to sit here writing back and forth about it , debating and arguing - I can't be bothered sorry!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Ultimately, it is the profit paradigm that runs contrary to the 'common good'. And if you are a product of (at least US 'culture', to use the term loosely) you cannot escape the immense inertia the status quo exhibits.

A very clear example exists in the development and deployment of human technology. We can clearly see that change is a threat. That those who have built profit models which were successful, did so at the cost of flexibility and change. The automobile industry's "Tucker" comes to mind.

The fact that change cannot come as an instantaneous event must be recognized. I have respect for those whop can view the future without dogmatic reliance on the paradigms of the present. But the evolution of mankind, towards whatever end, is a path, not a destination. I have great difficulty accepting that mankind 'can get there from here.'

I think we need to change 'where we are now' first. We need to expose and publicly create sensitivity to the detriments of the 'profiteering' vocation. The problem is deeply rooted because those who produce nothing for society have managed to massage -even the good aspects of society - into opportunities to to extract wealth from human affairs, while in turn serving no purpose to the service or product. Education, Health Care, Juris Prudence..., all corrupted by the corporate template demanding they constantly INCREASE profit rather than maintain a comfortable revenue flow to support their participants.

The corporate way always seems to be about making a killing, instead of making a comfortable living.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Whenever anyone says they want to do away with religion, it means they want to implant a State religion (ie, belief in the State). It means the State will dictate what and how much you get to eat, how much your worth is, what is right and wrong, etc. Religion is based on belief. Belief is a fundamental principle of human existence. Belief gives us a sense of purpose in our existence. Do away with freedom of religion, and you deprive us of our humanity.

And while those people in the Venus Project seem innocent enough, their views are easily perverted by those who wield power on this planet. Who actually thinks those who wield power now will simply give it up? For example, who actually thinks the military will simply roll over and give up its power? Hardly....



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Malynn
 


Surprised? I don't know. I just thought I was stating my opinion on it. But I did feel kind of ambushed when right near the end he starts talking about religion. And I thought I was safe LOL.

As for it being criminal that parents make their children believe their religious views.. that's been going on since time BEGAN. I mean, honestly, imagine the entire Ancient Egyptian culture being what it was, where even their Pharaohs were supposedly related to the Gods, if the children were not allowed to be "indoctrinated" by their beliefs.

Imagine Jewish Hasidim children growing up in their small tight nit communities, where the adults do some crazy ceremonies but it's ILLEGAL for them to participate in with their family until they reach a certain age.

I mean, religion can provide structure for children, culture, history, enrichment.

You know, I read something earlier about how there is an epidemic in suicides in Native American children -- one of the reasons the article gave? Lack of their faith.

www.argusleader.com.../20080921 /NEWS/809210301/1001

Against that backdrop, many have left the reservations, weakening extended families even further. And exacerbating the plight of those who remain was a federal policy of trying to integrate the Lakota into mainstream society by banning their language and religion, particularly in the boarding school settings, Akard said.


[edit on 9-10-2008 by cetta]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 1011010110
 


Oh wow, I totally agree with you. Thank you for posting here 1011010110!

By the way, sorry, one line post.




[edit on 9-10-2008 by cetta]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by cosmicpixie
 


I also have gone through the whole religious phase in my life. I'm sure you are not the only one that had a long journey among us on these boards, and I'm sure you are not the only one with an opinion.

You did state something here, and I'm not sure about it being offensive, and it wasn't offense I was stating, merely shock. I'm still in shock over such a statement. That's in direct opposite to every single thing I said.

I don't want to argue either, but I don't mind at all debating. But if you don't want to, that's fine.
But what else can we talk about here without a debate? You and I disagree.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by cetta
 


Ok, this isn't a dictatorship, you understand. The Venus Project depicts no political world, but truly there has to be organization, and a world run by a few self appointed dictators, even if it maintains this ideal, would still be fascist. I've often believed that management could be done with able bodied people doing a jury system. Where we are the managers, and for about 4 months get involved in organizing. But there would need to be safeguards, a group of also randomly chosen watchdogs with teeth, and many pathways to get people involved from grassroots.
Religions cause divisions, and some are very opposed to various peoples rights. Some currently operate as the form of government, so no one is free of this. So people have the right to form their own spiritual views, but this must be separate from all forms of government and all people, regardless of sex, age, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, health, etc etc would be equal in every way, free from abuse and discrimination, and equal owners of all resources and information (ie. there would be no patents. All discovers would belong to everyone as in the open source manner). So religions would be forced to get an upgrade. Also, the more technology, science and training all students would receive, would mean a new generation would emerge that wasn't quite as magic based in their thinking. Overall, people would still have ways to practice upgraded, peaceful and empowering, forms of spirituality. This isn't a dictatorship remember, but it is a society that maintains the fundamental principles of full equality without discrimination.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


OK. It's time for honesty. I don't know if I understood your whole post. You're like on some other level that is BEYOND. Wow. Haha.

Okay, but, yes. I do agree, if I understood you correctly, that we as a whole would have to change for a society like the Venus Project to work. This is why I mentioned in my post that I linked to that it's too advanced for us -- mentally, too advanced for us as a whole.

And it shouldn't be FORCED upon people. That's really what got the whole other way of thinking about the Venus Project going in my post.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I already have this topic covered in this same section. Its still on the 1st page in fact. Feel free to post this over there

www.abovetopsecret.com...





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join