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

I didn't mean to imply no-one else has thought long and hard about stuff, I just meant to convey my remark wasn't something flippant.

Someone said doing away with religion encourages a state religion instead- well I was thinking it might encourage SELF belief and SELF responsibility. A system like the Venus world would surely make the distinction rather than encourage people to look to them for all life's answers.

You DON'T need religion in order to perpetuate the human ability to believe. I totally disagree. Many things religion touches upon - the idea of the continuation of life after death for example, the notion that we have spirit guides and so on - there are many examples- can and do exist independently of religious DOCTRINE so would not disappear in my vision of the world, they would simply exist without dogma or the need to build churches and worship, gather in the hundreds to pray to whatever "saviour" they happen to feel they are accountable to (?!) , distributing texts that have been subject to endless corrections and adjustments and misrepresentations and so on.......

Granted, this is a good topic for debate but I guess I'm not in a debating mood. I've been sat here all day working on tarot readings (I must be an witch working with satanic forces then according to many christians, how hilarious and utterly preposterous, one example of the ridiculous views some religion spreads). I am tired and I know full well the kind of circular debate that can ensue with this kind of topic, it tends to go nowhere so I shall likely just read now rather than prop up my views in any further depth.

Have fun !

reply to post by cetta


I apologize if it was babbling.

It's just that there is so much to do here and now; while the Venus project is hard at work developing what I believe is an unrealistic fantasy.

I'm not saying its impossible, I'm saying that as things are now, it's completely unachievable. To ask for money to 'develop' this idea seems ironically twisted. And they DO ask for money.

To then I might be inclined to say (or certainly to think) "Let me get this straight, you want money, so you and your friends can sit around and intellectualize about how the world can be a better place?"

Sorry, projects like that DO sound vaguely like a religious endeavor. I have enough religion in the world as I see it, creating more isn't an attractive option to me.

reply to post by Maxmars



well of course they need money as how else would they make any headway with the project. We are not in a cashless resource society yet so they have to try and make progress while IN this current system. So if they need money, they will need to sell stuff and ask for donations....all perfectly realistic if you ask me. I can never understand why people seem to assume a project is negative in some way if it needs funding to get going on a broader level...are the Venus group supposed to muster the necessary cash injection out of thin air ?!

That man has an AMAZING and highyl advanced vision of society. If I was extraordinarilly welathy I'd be writing them a blank cheque right now.

reply to post by cetta


cetta, that link you provided is gone...but you said one of the reasons the Sioux are commiting suicides is lack of faith? But then in the little snip you provided it states a forced federal policy to ban their language and religion. So who's enforcing what now? Do you see the inherit flaw here?

Like Mr. Fresco explained - fascism, capitalism, communism, etc. - the same thing.

Sorry if I came across somewhat opinionated about the whole religion thing. But when Fresco explained the whole catholics say this, seventh-day adventists say this, church divided, blah blah, it struck a chord with me. Born catholic, growing up seventh-day adventist, i can say first hand religion divides. All my parents ever did was argue about religion. I found peace when they divorced. Religion - DIVIDES.

I'm all for spirituality as we are all spiritual beings...but please, spare me the dogmatics.

Look, noone's saying this project will be enforced upon us. I just can't see this happening although i'd wish it were already here. Human behaviour will need to change and this will occur with a global shift in consciousness. How many centuries will this take?

Here are the questions the movie refused to even ask much less answer. I've been asking these same questions here for a few days, and nobody ever answers them.

1. Who gets to decide how many resources each individual gets?

2. Who gets to decide how to "manage" the resources "properly"?

3. What do you do with the people who do not go along with it.

The movie talking about communism. No different than the NWO.

Money is merely a symbol of value. The real value behind money is in the value of the resources. That is the ONLY thing of value - which will be controlled. And this is different from today how?

The only way you can get rid of money, is for nothing in the world to have value. Which requires actual UNLIMITED resources for everyone. In which case, you don't need a system to manage the limited resources. The moment something becomes limited, then it has a value. And you can NOT get past that.

Sorry, but that whole part of the movie was propaganda for the status quo. It was dead on when it described the fed, but it did not at all present a proper solution.

Originally posted by 1011010110
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....

You are the first person I've added as a friend. You seem to actually get it.

This entire thing is merely a scam to get people to give up control to an elite few, aka those who "manage" the resources. People will give up that control because they think it's for the good.

But once control over the resources is given, what happens when the resources need to be put towards things people spin as good? Under the guise it is being properly managed?

Just look at how our resources in the past 7 years have been spent. They claim they are "properly managing" our resources to fight terrorism.

Sell it as being for the good, and then once you have it, make up threats so that you have an excuse on how you manage the resources. It is no different than what we have now.

And of course, gotta get rid of religion, or anything else that goes against what they want. So much for that freedom huh? Isn't that exactly what is going on today already? If you don't have the popular opinion, it's pushed down and silenced. And here we see the exact same thing.

It's just more status quo. It's like these people expect these kinds of things to be presented as bad. Of course it's going to be pushed as being better/for the good. But anyone who examines it beyond the image can see exactly what is going on.


[edit on 9-10-2008 by badmedia]

Originally posted by badmedia
Here are the questions the movie refused to even ask much less answer. I've been asking these same questions here for a few days, and nobody ever answers them.

1. Who gets to decide how many resources each individual gets?

2. Who gets to decide how to "manage" the resources "properly"?

3. What do you do with the people who do not go along with it.

The movie talking about communism. No different than the NWO.

Money is merely a symbol of value. The real value behind money is in the value of the resources. That is the ONLY thing of value - which will be controlled. And this is different from today how?

The only way you can get rid of money, is for nothing in the world to have value. Which requires actual UNLIMITED resources for everyone. In which case, you don't need a system to manage the limited resources. The moment something becomes limited, then it has a value. And you can NOT get past that.

Sorry, but that whole part of the movie was propaganda for the status quo. It was dead on when it described the fed, but it did not at all present a proper solution.

I could NOT agree more with you.

Native North Americans were not communistic, or fascist. Our black and white idioms do not describe the beauty of an equal system. Initially all people would be struggling to erect in groups, homes for each other, including people who aren't physically capable of labor. Resources would have to be pooled and shared. So the idea of sharing versus winners and losers is communism? Then that means anything thats not sharing should immmediately have an ugly negative word as well, since sharing is obviously the righteous, ideal, loving and fair thing to do.

Our current building is wasteful and destructive to our forests. Here are some examples of what we could accomplish Bali style, were the communities get together and raise houses for each other:

www.greenhomebuilding.com...

www.earthship.net...


IMG]http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn251/mystiq123/IMG_0161highlight.jpg[/IMG]












These are just teasers of a bali style roof raising.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by mystiq]

Remember communism failed because it wasnt really communism. People still werent getting fair shares there was still elite and scum. It wasnt what communism was supposed to be.

Communism I think, if followed properly, would be the best thing for human society. Our system today is based on greed everyone thinks of themselves because if they think of others they wont make any money for themselves. Greed is a primitive survival instinct if you think about it, back when greed ws need was when humans needed to fight for their survival. What do we need to fight for anymore? We know how to grow food, we plenty of animal farms, the only wars we have today are to make the super rich more wealthy and powerful.

We dont need greed anymore. They know that, the elites, they dont want us to know that, they fabricate reasons for their profits wars like 9/11, they teach us early on that people need to work to survive, they control the media, they control almost every controllable resource, basically the only reason why greed is still alive and well is because the super elite have fabricated reasons why we need to be greedy.

We need to open our eyes, we all think we know whats going on, we havent the slightest clue. We need to keep open minds and we need to care for our fellow man, we can no do that the way the system is set up now. So we need to change the system.

Indians lived under communism. They did everything for the community(tribe), and the elders(elite) decided everything.

Quit focusing on image. Just because they call it something else, doesn't mean it is something else. Look at all the different languages of the world. Is it the language that defines the tree, or is it the tree that is universal and only the languages change in what you call it?

reply to post by caballero


Communism fails by design. The entire game there is just to get people to give up their power and control to another. It's always sold that it will be for the good of the people, but once the power is given away it quickly changes to an authoritarian government.

Once the power is given to others, it's only 1 step away from a change in direction on how that power is used. And as you gave up your power, you have none left to get change. That is what the entire "Beware of those who promise false gifts" is about.

Quit giving up your power to other people.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by badmedia]

Originally posted by badmedia
Indians lived under communism. They did everything for the community(tribe), and the elders(elite) decided everything.

Because they all knew that they were equally important to their society. That desicions had to be made that food had to be hunted found or grown, then it had to be prepared, tribal wars had to be fought, and they all had their place no one wanted a better place because every title was equal and very important for their society to survive.

Communism, by my perception, everyone is equal. If you let people know in their hearts they are equal and we are all children of the earth, then we will all look after eachother, especially if we are all fed disease free and living comfortably. However you tell everyone that they are equal but you get more repsect, food, and a bigger living space, then they look at that and see they arent equal, thats why their communism failed.

Just respect each other we are all equal.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by caballero]

Originally posted by caballero

Because they all knew that they were equally important to their society. That desicions had to be made that food had to be hunted found or grown, then it had to be prepared, tribal wars had to be fought, and they all had their place no one wanted a better place because every title was equal and very important for their society to survive.

Communism, by my perception, everyone is equal. If you let people know in their hearts they are equal and we are all children of the earth, then we will all look after eachother, especially if we are all fed disease free and living comfortably. However you tell everyone that they are equal but you get more repsect, food, and a bigger living space, then they look at that and see they arent equal, thats why their communism failed.

Just respect each other we are all equal.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by caballero]

Ok, if we are equal and respect each other, then why will my free will and individuality not be respected?

What will happen to people like me, who will not go along with a communistic system? How are you showing me that in your heart you believe we are equal when I will not be allowed to live free of such a system?

It's one thing to say we respect you, and we are all equal. But it's an entirely other ball game to understand and be willing to give up power over others to actually do it.

If we truly live in a place that does that respect and treat people as equals, then we will live in a free society, with free markets, and equal opportunity. Now, in this kind of society, there is absolutely nothing that would stop you from doing these things. You would be able to JOIN people who wanted to live like that. You could all work together, and opt into social programs. And I will say more power to ya. If it's my choice and I can leave it at any time of my choosing, I would probably even give money, or as the movie calls it, resources, to such causes. I give to charities and such.

But as you wish to make it "government", then you wish to force everyone to it. You wish to force people to your kind of society. And which point, you become no different than the people you are complaining about. You're problem is you just want to be in control(or someone with your ideals) in charge.

And before the environment scapegoat is used. All pollution should be illegal. You have no right to pollute another persons area. Regulations and such that are passed off as being environmentally friendly really just legalize pollution in certain amounts, for certain people. And as the lobbyists have such big hands to push the issues, it's also generally done as a way of stopping competition, by getting regulations you can easily follow, that they can't. Quit legalizing pollution with regulations please.

Resources = money. Resource based system = money based system. Time is a resource. Thus, why you often hear time = money.

Originally posted by caballero

...
Just respect each other we are all equal.

...
[edit on 9-10-2008 by caballero]

If we are really all equal then, how is someones religious beliefs going to be looked at so intolerantly? In the face that we're all equal, then no one is wrong, including those who want to believe in what they want to believe and want their children to believe how they want their children to believe. So then why is this man, Fresco, from The Venus Project looking at is as if people are wrong for "indoctrinating" their children and having religious, dogmatic beliefs, as well as those who want to go by the old familial values?

reply to post by badmedia


I've added you as a friend badmedia.

reply to post by Maxmars


Oh! No! You weren't babbling. At least not to me. You just seem highly intelligent, need to tone it down for those of us who are more average haha.



I think it is also an unrealistic fantasy, if what Fresco has in mind is purely what he says and he is genuine about it. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, what he is saying isn't so bad, but we as humans won't have it. And that's our right not to have it. As long as people have different ideas and different beliefs, a society where religions are viewed upon as an old way of thinking, and teaching your children to believe what you do is "indoctrination" -- as they put a negative spin on it -- it can't ever happen. And shouldn't happen.

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by cetta

 

To ask for money to 'develop' this idea seems ironically twisted. And they DO ask for money.

To then I might be inclined to say (or certainly to think) "Let me get this straight, you want money, so you and your friends can sit around and intellectualize about how the world can be a better place?"

And also, I mean, I see them as raping the system that rapes us. Currently you need money to do this or that -- which they're going to do away with or TRY to or at least that is one of their main visions -- but in order to do that they need to play by the rules of what's here and now.

I don't really see that as neither here nor there.

Originally posted by cosmicpixie
reply to post by Maxmars

 

are the Venus group supposed to muster the necessary cash injection out of thin air ?!

Like the Fed has been doing for hundreds of years? Haha.

Mr Fresco's main premise is that the world resources are the birthright of ALL of humanity not just the Rockefellers, or the Rothchilds, or even that scumbag Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Chief Executive Richard S. Fuld Jr. Regardless of what system we have until we look at the rest of humanity as our true brothers we will always know war.

On a side note isn't there some way we can have Mr Fuld deported to the poorest country on earth, (without all of his ill gotten millions).. let them rip him to pieces. Sweet justice if you ask me.


Sailor

reply to post by cetta


i disagree with some of your conclusions, but do agree the venus project may not be as good as it sounds.

a society of any type always needs workers, workers will always want more than others due to their labour and efforts and giving up free time, that is very resonable to expect.

i don't think the bloke who was speaking on the venus project was talking about people not being able to teach their children values, morals etc, i think he was simply explaining the way corruption works and the way it is today.

IMO the venus project is not all bad, there is a lot of things that could be applied to make the world a better place, and a much more stable place.

less crime, less stress etc etc.

but i don't think you can escape the system of paid labour, and some sort of bank to store the fruits of your labour.

you could say crime would not be wiped out completely as a result, and things would not be totally free, they would need to cover costs of the labour. would that mean production and distribution would not be entirely free?if things are not free, everbody else would then need work to buy things.

the only way the venus project could work is with slaves, or free labour, but that would not make it a place of freedom for ALL. and those who work for free would soon complain.

you would still need scientists, designers just for starters, how else do these machines that do the work get built? you'd also always need inspectors who inspect the machines for their state of repair.

we would simply move from a workforce supplying society with everyday things, to a society repairing/overseeing things that do it for us.

and if it were possible to get machines to do the whole thing, you'd still need management, to ensure everything is running smoothly and is as it should be.

even in the most free society you could imagine, you'd always need workers. paid workers means those with more, thus there will always be people who want to take of those who have more. GREED.

all you could do is build a society where you lessen the negatives, but it would be impossible to wipe out the negative bits completely.

would you still need leaders, training, education, health care, care homes?
or would robots do that to?

you would certainly need people willing to give more than others for free.

and thats the problem, people willing to give something more than others to make it work for free.
the whole reason we went from cultures of people living in primitive settlements, where no one was homeless and nobody went hungry to what we have today IS because there are always people who don't want to give more than others for free.

the amount of people not willing to give more than others freely must outweigh the amount willing to give more than others freely, otherwise we would'nt be in this situation now. the future would of been different.

the future would of been the venus project, but its not, its this.
i see the venus project as what it could of been like, a future we forked of from a very long time ago.






[edit on 9-10-2008 by lifeform]