reply to post by Scarcer
Thank you for the comments, and if you wish to point out specific arguments that I have made which you consider "weak", I can respond to them, or
you can use this general response as a base.
First of all, the purpose of this thread is to point out the nature of the Zeitgeist Movie as a work of propaganda. I personally do not believe that
to be a big question -- it is clearly a film which is intended to elicit a response, one favourable to the creators of the movie. To that end, I find
it highly unlikely that it was not made with an intentional point -- if you want to make the case that it was just a "random conspiracy movie" and
then Peter Joseph stumbled across the Venus Project subsequently and decided to start promoting that, go right ahead, but I think you've a bit of
work ahead of you.
The success of the propaganda is evidenced in this thread. Joseph has no interest in educating Christians, or exposing NWO tactics -- the intent is
to ingratiate himself with people who distrust organizations, whether Church, State, Bilderberg or whatever. And the proof that it works is right
Me: The sources used for Zeitgeist are not credible, here is evidence.
Zeitgeist fan: That's just an emotional response. I have no evidence to counter you, but you're wrong.
Now, as to your claims regarding the viability of a system promoted by the Venus Project, there are a large number of problems, but they all come down
to one single point.
For resources to be shared equitably across the globe, you need to have universal acceptance. That's problem one, and, as has been pointed out by a
proponent in this thread, the only way to manage that is at the point of a gun. Using past barbarism to justify future barbarism, an abhorrent,
uncivilized and indefensible thing, in my opinion. You want to grouse about the abuses of the Church, but defend this sort of wholesale slaughter?
Collectivisation in the Soviet Union, which is exactly what you are talking about here, spin aside, resulted in the famine of 1930s, across the
nation. It particularly hit hard in the Ukraine, as documented here
. If you didn't bother reading
that, let me sum up... 14.5 million peasants (the people that the Bolsheviks were supposed to be saving from the Tsar) dead. That's roughly the
current population of the state of Illinois. Starved, imprisoned, tortured and destroyed because they refused to go along with the state's
appropriation of their property and produce.
However, if we move beyond that little conundrum, we run into the problem of productivity. People tend to be more productive if they are working for
their own benefit, that's an "unfortunate" byproduct of evolution. Looking at Herzberg's
, there's an awful lot of "me" in there, because that's human nature. Studies have shown that, while there is an initial boost in
many cases, working for the "common good" lags after time, particularly in instances where there is not a sense of universalism. Agricultural
production in the Soviet Union declined precipitously both in the post revolution years following World War II, and the collectivization years of the
Conversely, returning land to private ownership demonstrates that collectivization is a bad idea. From 1990-2005, the percentage of land in Russia
that was in private hands went from two percent to twenty percent, but in the same time frame, the percentage of food produced by private hands went
from 21% to 53%. Over half the food produced in Russia in 2005 came from 20% of the land, the 20% held privately.
Finally, (though there are other compelling arguments, of course,) we have the problem of resource limitation. No matter how many robots,
supercomputers or other panacean technological solutions one might toss out there, there is no getting around the fact that, whether there is enough
to go around today, at some point in the future there will not be. At that point, how will the deficiency be addressed? Though it is, without
question, inhumane, capitalism has an inherent feedback mechanism that manages it, but a directed economy will result in an arbitrary (if fair) or
biased (more likely) decision on the part of whoever is running the Zeitgeist world.
The only way that this thing works is through the brutal collectivization of the world's resources and subsequent repression of dissenters and people
who aren't producing sufficiently and/or worldwide brainwashing. Either way, it's the NWO, baby, but with dimwits like Peter Joseph and D.M.
Murdock running the show.