Originally posted by Scarcer
I'm not impressed with your approach, nor your argument.
Well, I'm not particularly surprised, so no worries.
It's apparent that your argument is not very popular on the forums, nor have you succeeded to win me over to your point of view.
Life is not a popularity contest, and I don't really care if you change your mind or not. The purpose of these forums is to stimulate discussion on
topics and provide facts that are related to the topic at hand. Threads may die and be of little worth, or they may be resources for people
researching a topic, now and in the future.
Someone who comes across this thread will, hopefully, learn something about the nature of the Zeitgeist films, the dishonest or incompetent approach
taken to, at least, Part One of the first movie, and the disingenuous and contradictory nature of the rest of it -- appealing to those who fear a New
World Order, in order to have a basis to establish a New World Order of their own. There is a very specific reason that I posted this thread in this
sub-forum, not in, say, the forum on Conspiracies in Religion.
For your side, they will see that when tough questions are answered, such as the means by which the economic structure of the world is changed, in one
fell swoop, or how technology that doesn't exist can be developed in the chaotic morass that at least one of you predicts, or how people will be
motivated to suddenly work for the common good, when millions of years of evolution have produced a human nature that is directly contrary to that,
those questions go unanswered with a smarmy dismissal of "you don't understand what the Venus Project is all about."
Yes, I do understand. In spending time talking to Zeitgeist zealots and in reading the papers and posts that are associated with both the Venus
Project and resource based economies in general, an overwhelming sense emerges -- young idealists, ignorant of economics, political science,
psychology and history, being led by old idealists, who may or may not be ignorant, but who take advantage of their followers' lack of education by
selling them a bill of goods that cannot possibly work.
Who benefits? The leaders, obviously. In the present, they have income, attention and a sense that their perspective is valid. Even if it's nothing
more than mere ego-stroking, don't discount the value of it. And if this thing ever worked out, you can be certain that there would be a human
hierarchy that makes decisions, and it would be these people, not you. Morals, values, decisions -- they would no longer come from society, but from
the technocratic elite who will determine that what's best for mankind is best for you, even if that means your immediate death.
Don't say it wouldn't happen, because it has, repeatedly.
I should probably explain that part of the reason that I am so vehemently opposed to a system such as you propose, and why I keep going back to its
most obvious predecessor, the Soviet Union, is because a long time ago, when I was in Graduate School, one of my professors was one of the leading
scholars in the study of famine, specifically famine as a political weapon, and even more specifically, famine in the Soviet Union. So I got to spend
a lot of time studying what happened, how it happened, and what it would take to have it happen again.
It began with idealists who lacked an understanding of economics, believing that Marx was wrong, and communism could be established from feudalism
without the intermediary step of capitalism. The idealists took advantage of a war and Tsar weary public, rode on their backs to political victory,
and established a crushing totalitarian regime that effectively dehumanized the population in order to achieve their means.
History shows that the price paid by those millions was without value -- the centralized, planned economy is not efficient, it is not sustainable, and
it requires a level of control that eventually results in the violent suppression of the populace. Central planning lasted as long as it did, not
because it was a workable idea, but because of the ruthless governance, combined with the willingness to compromise the core beliefs when they became
untenable and risked loss of control for those in power.
If Lenin had not established the NEP in 1921, which re-introduced capitalism, there would have been riots in the streets and the Bolsheviks would have
been out of power within a short time.
If it was brainwashing, I'd expect there to be massive media, governmental and corporate support for TVP and TZM, and we would be well on our
way to a far faster transition. At this moment in time, I really so no relation.
You don't seem to understand what brainwashing is, and how it is effective. It begins with a mind that already wants to believe what is being
preached. People don't join cults because they are bored or looking for poker buddies or something -- they seek answers that they believe the group
has. And when they get the answers, it doesn't really matter if they are valid or not.
The media, government and corporations, along with pretty much everyone who has something to lose in a centralized economy (which, again, extends down
to the lowly peasant with one cow) has no interest in the answers that the Venus Project provides, so, the target market, if you will, is the young
disaffected idealist, who doesn't like the state of the world, hates the injustice and wants to do something. Oh, and who has nothing to lose.
It is a subtly different version of "workers of the world, unite!", but it's effectively the same thing.
One sign of brainwashing is the blind devotion to specific people -- my subtle, and eventually not so subtle, digs at the person of Peter Joseph were
intended to elicit such a response, as they did. Another is the suspension of critical thought -- the whole "ignore history" and "this is different
than communism" and "technology will solve the problem" are indications of this. You have no valid basis for such claims, because if you understood
the fundamental problem and thought it through, you'd see that there really aren't any. Frankly, you'd be better off saying "okay, it is communism,
but here is how we will not repeat the errors of the past", because then at least you'd be thinking.
So, either you are following fools, who lead you, Pied Piper like, into a world that is unfeasible at best, but more likely an utter disaster, or you
are following people who realize the impracticality of their design, and are using you and your fellow idealists to achieve something that they could
not on their own -- power.
I do wish to make one thing perfectly clear, though. I do not believe that our current system is an ideal one, nor do I believe that efforts to
improve things are futile or valueless. And I don't discount the tremendous value of idealism -- I was an idealist for quite some time. But,
eventually, as it does for most people, reality sets in, pragmatism emerges, and I set aside aspirations for the "ideal" society, and accepted the
"real" society, and THEN began to look for ways of I could personally improve it.
edit on 18-3-2011 by adjensen because: oopsies