| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| ||||
Just goes to show you what politicians are all about, no matter what orientation.
And people accuse Jon Stewart off throwing softballs to leftists... Right.
April 30, 2010
Gordon "Gekko" Brown Part 2
Have a second look at what politicians like Gordon "Gekko" Brown are all about. Jon Stewart, as usual, made a funny sketch about it.
Just goes to show you what politicians are all about, no matter what orientation.
And people accuse Jon Stewart off throwing softballs to leftists... Right.
Just goes to show you what politicians are all about, no matter what orientation.
And people accuse Jon Stewart off throwing softballs to leftists... Right.
Gordon "Gekko" Brown
Today I watched British prime-minister Gordon Brown make a speech on television, they are having re-elections in the U.K. The thing that struck me is that he basically was saying: 'if you want someone reliable to handle the economy, vote for me because I've done it up to now.' Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of this. Every channel you watch on tv or every newspaper you open is about "the economy," like that is the holiest institution of everything that exists in the Universe. Money clearly proceeds the needs of people, and where does it eventually end up? With the ones who made it in the first place.
People in the governments of the world are nothing but economic managers if you ask me. They are not there for the people, they are there for the money. Maybe Brown should change his last name in to 'Gekko.' That suits him much better and gives a more clearer indication what it is all about.
People in the governments of the world are nothing but economic managers if you ask me. They are not there for the people, they are there for the money. Maybe Brown should change his last name in to 'Gekko.' That suits him much better and gives a more clearer indication what it is all about.
April 27, 2010
April 20, 2010
Zeitgeist Therapy
Last week I entered a discussion on the ATS forums where one contributor claims that the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project is 'hardcore NWO propaganda.' Naturally other accusations followed such as it being communism and the latest is that the Zeitgeist Movement is a cult. Today I wrote this to the guy;
Yeah, so now the ZM and TVP are a cult? You know what this whole thread amounts up to? A smear campaign. A typical example of American culture. You act like a lawyer in court and it's not so much about objectivity or finding the truth, it's about making the other guy or party look bad because they don't suit your own particular interests. (Flip on Fox News or visit Infowars.com - fine examples there.)
Goldman Sachs has been in the news lately. Turns out they have been incredible con-artists. The Obama administration wants more regulations for the financial industry, and what do the Republicans do? They already stated that they want no such action and will oppose it! Time and time again Wall Street has been proven to be corrupt to the core and now one of the major political parties in the U.S. plainly states that they wont act against it. How much of a cult member do you have to be to vote for the Republican party? Water-boarding is fine according to Cheney, and lets not forget those nasty (non-existent) WMD's in Iraq which didn't seem to bother a lot of people in re-electing Bush.
Now ZG and TVP are a cult? Take a look around you in the world. Many people receive programming without even being aware of it. They just act in a lethargic way.
You know what governs the world? Self interest! Zeitgeist and the Venus Project get a lot of critique from the conservative (isolationist) right. Often these people are concerned with their freedom, their own property and basically want little to no government interference. Naturally these people vote conservatively, it's in their self interest. What does conservative politics do? It gives business a free reign. And that breeds a (financial) elite of its own. The very same elite conservative people despise at times and sometimes call NWO. Isn't that cult-like?
You know what the difference is between a conservative blue-collar worker and a conservative billionaire? Basically nothing, except the billionaire has money, power and influence. Both have their self interest at heart, likewise the billionaire will try keep and expand his money and property. That's his self interest. What does this line of thinking produce? A society you have in the U.S. right now. You created it.
Doesn't that in some strange way make you a member of the NWO?
Does mentioning this make me a communist or a member of a cult? I think such an accusation would be very unintelligent. Ask ZG members if they want a society like Soviet Russia or current day China. Everyone would say no because they have the same sense of liberty as you do. Those ZG members want freedom, not another oppressive social system.
I think that in the (near) future the Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project will have an effect like psychotherapy for the planet because at its core it has all the right elements yet it apparently conflicts with what most people hold dear: their own self interest. And that's a paradox in itself because TVP stands for the interest of all people and getting the highest standard of living for everyone. You can ask yourself what stands in the way of TVP. Your own ego?
Yeah, so now the ZM and TVP are a cult? You know what this whole thread amounts up to? A smear campaign. A typical example of American culture. You act like a lawyer in court and it's not so much about objectivity or finding the truth, it's about making the other guy or party look bad because they don't suit your own particular interests. (Flip on Fox News or visit Infowars.com - fine examples there.)
Goldman Sachs has been in the news lately. Turns out they have been incredible con-artists. The Obama administration wants more regulations for the financial industry, and what do the Republicans do? They already stated that they want no such action and will oppose it! Time and time again Wall Street has been proven to be corrupt to the core and now one of the major political parties in the U.S. plainly states that they wont act against it. How much of a cult member do you have to be to vote for the Republican party? Water-boarding is fine according to Cheney, and lets not forget those nasty (non-existent) WMD's in Iraq which didn't seem to bother a lot of people in re-electing Bush.
Now ZG and TVP are a cult? Take a look around you in the world. Many people receive programming without even being aware of it. They just act in a lethargic way.
You know what governs the world? Self interest! Zeitgeist and the Venus Project get a lot of critique from the conservative (isolationist) right. Often these people are concerned with their freedom, their own property and basically want little to no government interference. Naturally these people vote conservatively, it's in their self interest. What does conservative politics do? It gives business a free reign. And that breeds a (financial) elite of its own. The very same elite conservative people despise at times and sometimes call NWO. Isn't that cult-like?
You know what the difference is between a conservative blue-collar worker and a conservative billionaire? Basically nothing, except the billionaire has money, power and influence. Both have their self interest at heart, likewise the billionaire will try keep and expand his money and property. That's his self interest. What does this line of thinking produce? A society you have in the U.S. right now. You created it.
Doesn't that in some strange way make you a member of the NWO?
Does mentioning this make me a communist or a member of a cult? I think such an accusation would be very unintelligent. Ask ZG members if they want a society like Soviet Russia or current day China. Everyone would say no because they have the same sense of liberty as you do. Those ZG members want freedom, not another oppressive social system.
I think that in the (near) future the Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project will have an effect like psychotherapy for the planet because at its core it has all the right elements yet it apparently conflicts with what most people hold dear: their own self interest. And that's a paradox in itself because TVP stands for the interest of all people and getting the highest standard of living for everyone. You can ask yourself what stands in the way of TVP. Your own ego?
April 19, 2010
April 17, 2010
My UFO Sighting 2010
Last night just before I went to bed I decided to go outside in my backyard and do some stargazing. There were some high clouds, we are still having some problems here with ash from a volcano in Iceland. Nonetheless the stars were also visible in some places. An object in the south (slowly heading north) caught my attention and it had the look of a satellite. I went inside and got my camera thinking I would test it in the night sky once more. Took me around 10 seconds to get the camera and when I went outside again I couldn't find the object no more.
For a minute I was staring where maybe the object would reappear. As I mentioned before there were some high clouds and maybe the object was behind those. Suddenly I see an object again in my view, this time it was moving northeast. It had the light intensity of an airplane at night but there were no (blinking) lights. It also moved much faster then an airplane or satellite would do, it was traveling at 'jet-speeds' if I can call it that. At that moment I was putting the camera into action but I messed up I think. In the excitement I probably forgot to take off the lens cover.
The object, although at some altitude, was out of my view within around 8 seconds even though I could see a large portion of the sky. It also looked a bit more oblong then a satellite. I looked at the camera footage this morning but it was just dark. I doubt the camera could have picked it up if I hadn't messed up since it takes some time before the camcorder gets into focus and the object wasn't that bright, that's something else a camera has trouble with picking up. Nonetheless I am a bit disappointed not getting some footage.
What's interesting to note here is that yesterday when I made the sighting, the airports were closed. All air traffic was suspended due to the ash in the sky from the Icelandic Eyjafjallajökull volcano. Read this morning in the newspaper that literally all types of airplanes were grounded, also balloons and light aircraft etc. Nothing was permitted to fly yesterday. Kind of makes you wonder what I saw flying in the sky.
For a minute I was staring where maybe the object would reappear. As I mentioned before there were some high clouds and maybe the object was behind those. Suddenly I see an object again in my view, this time it was moving northeast. It had the light intensity of an airplane at night but there were no (blinking) lights. It also moved much faster then an airplane or satellite would do, it was traveling at 'jet-speeds' if I can call it that. At that moment I was putting the camera into action but I messed up I think. In the excitement I probably forgot to take off the lens cover.
The object, although at some altitude, was out of my view within around 8 seconds even though I could see a large portion of the sky. It also looked a bit more oblong then a satellite. I looked at the camera footage this morning but it was just dark. I doubt the camera could have picked it up if I hadn't messed up since it takes some time before the camcorder gets into focus and the object wasn't that bright, that's something else a camera has trouble with picking up. Nonetheless I am a bit disappointed not getting some footage.
What's interesting to note here is that yesterday when I made the sighting, the airports were closed. All air traffic was suspended due to the ash in the sky from the Icelandic Eyjafjallajökull volcano. Read this morning in the newspaper that literally all types of airplanes were grounded, also balloons and light aircraft etc. Nothing was permitted to fly yesterday. Kind of makes you wonder what I saw flying in the sky.
April 16, 2010
Our Technical Reality
Douglas Mallette has a YouTube channel called TZMSocialEvolution. Above is the first part of 'Our Technical Reality' (uploaded on his channel), which basically shows that we can run the entire planet on clean energy systems. That is, if we wanted to. Advances in robotics are mind-blowing and also prove to be a tremendous asset in medical procedures. The documentary shows that the current state of technology can solve many problems in the world, we just have to find the will. Not the money.
April 15, 2010
Ash Cloud Sunset
It was all over the news. Ash clouds from a volcano in Iceland were heading towards Europe. Airspace was closed, flights cancelled and planes grounded around 6 P.M. C.E.T. I was keeping an eye out this afternoon and later on in the evening but from what I've seen it hasn't been that spectacular (so far). Some thin high clouds in the sky. Internet newspapers also mentioned that we could be having a deep 'red sunset' due to the ash in the sky. Took the shot above around that time and there were some pinkish/reddish clouds. Nothing Earth-shattering.
April 13, 2010
Silly Jones
Take a look at how silly Alex Jones treats the Zeitgeist Movement. Basically it's just plain sad, if there is a NWO they would surely benefit from liberation movements getting into each others hairs. The fact that Jones totally misses this point and just adds more vitriol, is just plain stupid. Hopefully one day he'll recognize his mistake and retract those mindless debunking comments. I think Zeitgeist and Infowars at the core want the same thing, a better world. In the mean time we can discuss the differences on how to do that like civilized adults.
April 11, 2010
Zeitgeist = Communism?
You know, often on forums the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project get a lot of opposition from folks who claim it is Communism. I suppose the concept of sharing resources is reminiscent of a communist state, but while you're making that equation you can wonder about 'not sharing' and what kind of 'ism' that would be. At the core Zeitgeist aims much higher then communism. The latter has shown it still works under a monetary system. You just have to take a look at China today and see how "communist" they really are. Historically communism was and is a failure because despite its goals it transcended in totalitarian regimes, brutal even to their own people.
Jacque Fresco, the man behind the Venus Project, had this to say about comparisons with Communism;
Communism used money and labor, had social stratification, and elected officials to maintain the communists' traditions. Most importantly, Communism did not eliminate SCARCITY nor did they have a blueprint or the methods for the production of abundance. Machine production rather than labor will dominate the future. Perhaps through no fault of their own, they also had to maintain huge military expenditures to protect themselves from invasion of fascistic and capitalistic institutions.
Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders. The Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people. The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments.
Fresco is pretty clear on the relationship between the Venus Project and Communism. Still, that doesn't deter some folks to make the communist claim. Personally, I think such opposition is fueled by the fear of losing what (little) they may have, be it in a materialistic and/or mental way. The loss of money or personal property is easy to identify as a motive. On another level there might be fear of losing the identity that is associated with the kind of work a person does. The loss of social identity. However, this is only a portion. In my opinion, the remaining factor is simply social conditioning.
A person growing up in America will automatically receive information that communism is bad and if something remotely reeks of it, alarm bells should go off. The reactions of Americans amaze me sometimes. Personally I've worked with people from former communist regimes, such as Poles, Russians and Czechs. While they admit their lives were hard and that now they enjoy democracy and freedom much more, they hardly go off on a tantrum like some Americans do who never lived in such a system. They have a different attitude and mindset towards communism (in general). That sets the American mindset apart. It's simply social conditioning.
Growing up in Holland in the seventies I received social conditioning as well. Basically I grew up hating the Germans. Why you might ask? Well, that's simply something you pick up from other family members who experienced WW2. The hard times and negative emotions they endured were transferred on to me. There are even local/micro factors. My hometown was a hotbed for resistance against the Germans during WW2 and on occasion a German officer was ambushed and killed. The Germans retaliated by picking 10 random citizens and executing them. Memorials of those incidents are close by. As a kid growing up you pick that up as well. Later on in life you learn how to put that into perspective. The current German generation had nothing to do with all the atrocities during WW2 and therefore hate directed against them is completely unjustified. But it takes time to rationalize and abandon such emotions.
I think something similar is present in current day America. People who fought in Korea or Vietnam will naturally relay their experiences to family members. Those negative emotions would be associated with communism in general. American culture itself strongly opposed communism right after WW2 in the media and schools. Again that is another form of social conditioning. The trick is to put that into proper perspective, move beyond shallow emotions and rationalize the situation you are in.
Is Zeitgeist or The Venus Project Communism? No, I would say. There's no politburo or any other institution like it. The trick is that every person is aware of the basics of human necessity. In a way it's another ideology, it's moving forward while going back to basics. It's about eliminating inequality in every way. Eliminating wars, poverty, hunger and ensuring a high standard of living for every human being on the planet. Did Communism, Capitalism, Fascism or Socialism ever achieve that? No, they didn't. That's why Zeitgeist and The Venus Project are in a different category altogether.
Jacque Fresco, the man behind the Venus Project, had this to say about comparisons with Communism;
Communism used money and labor, had social stratification, and elected officials to maintain the communists' traditions. Most importantly, Communism did not eliminate SCARCITY nor did they have a blueprint or the methods for the production of abundance. Machine production rather than labor will dominate the future. Perhaps through no fault of their own, they also had to maintain huge military expenditures to protect themselves from invasion of fascistic and capitalistic institutions.
Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders. The Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people. The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments.
Fresco is pretty clear on the relationship between the Venus Project and Communism. Still, that doesn't deter some folks to make the communist claim. Personally, I think such opposition is fueled by the fear of losing what (little) they may have, be it in a materialistic and/or mental way. The loss of money or personal property is easy to identify as a motive. On another level there might be fear of losing the identity that is associated with the kind of work a person does. The loss of social identity. However, this is only a portion. In my opinion, the remaining factor is simply social conditioning.
A person growing up in America will automatically receive information that communism is bad and if something remotely reeks of it, alarm bells should go off. The reactions of Americans amaze me sometimes. Personally I've worked with people from former communist regimes, such as Poles, Russians and Czechs. While they admit their lives were hard and that now they enjoy democracy and freedom much more, they hardly go off on a tantrum like some Americans do who never lived in such a system. They have a different attitude and mindset towards communism (in general). That sets the American mindset apart. It's simply social conditioning.
Growing up in Holland in the seventies I received social conditioning as well. Basically I grew up hating the Germans. Why you might ask? Well, that's simply something you pick up from other family members who experienced WW2. The hard times and negative emotions they endured were transferred on to me. There are even local/micro factors. My hometown was a hotbed for resistance against the Germans during WW2 and on occasion a German officer was ambushed and killed. The Germans retaliated by picking 10 random citizens and executing them. Memorials of those incidents are close by. As a kid growing up you pick that up as well. Later on in life you learn how to put that into perspective. The current German generation had nothing to do with all the atrocities during WW2 and therefore hate directed against them is completely unjustified. But it takes time to rationalize and abandon such emotions.
I think something similar is present in current day America. People who fought in Korea or Vietnam will naturally relay their experiences to family members. Those negative emotions would be associated with communism in general. American culture itself strongly opposed communism right after WW2 in the media and schools. Again that is another form of social conditioning. The trick is to put that into proper perspective, move beyond shallow emotions and rationalize the situation you are in.
Is Zeitgeist or The Venus Project Communism? No, I would say. There's no politburo or any other institution like it. The trick is that every person is aware of the basics of human necessity. In a way it's another ideology, it's moving forward while going back to basics. It's about eliminating inequality in every way. Eliminating wars, poverty, hunger and ensuring a high standard of living for every human being on the planet. Did Communism, Capitalism, Fascism or Socialism ever achieve that? No, they didn't. That's why Zeitgeist and The Venus Project are in a different category altogether.
April 9, 2010
April 8, 2010
2010: Bend Or Break?
Fine Dutch documentary (with large portions in English) about the credit crisis and the possibility of a second dip. Experts make it clear that banks take the risks and taxpayers get the bill. The controversial radio show host Alex Jones put it well, 'maximize profits - socialize the risk.'
April 5, 2010
Follow The Money
It never seizes to amaze me how many people are really indoctrinated in the system. Often on forums folks blame new movements without realizing their current predicament. When you earn your living and pay your taxes, there's a whole system behind that and to figure out who's really pulling the strings in your life you only have to follow the money. Americans seem to excel in criticizing new schools of thought and promoting their free market system while apparently having little to no understanding who it is that is pushing their buttons. Sure, it is the government but upon further examination you'll see that they are intertwined with banks and large corporations.
America, the world leader of the free market, has a debt of 12 trillion. That's 12.000 billion dollars. What's so funny about that (from my perspective) is that they call it "public debt." You can read the Wikipedia article here. Public debt basically means that every American citizen is financially responsible. How are you as an American citizen required to pay off that debt? With taxes of course. You can thank the politicians you choose who uphold the monetary system for that one. They make policy and ultimately you get the bill. But lets take a look at who the American people owe money.
While a quarter of that debt is made off various institutions and companies, it's far more interesting to look at the bigger slices of that debt. Roughly one quarter of the total debt is owed to "foreign and and international." Those are other countries such as China and Japan (who nearly have one trillion of the American debt each) but also other institutions such as "oil exporters" and banking centers. (By the way, the 5 trillion take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are excluded from the balance!) That gives countries such as China and Japan a great deal of leverage over American policy because basically they own a large part of the country. Nonetheless, the main creditor of American debt is the Federal Reserve (or Fed).
Who is the Fed? You would think it's the bank of the U.S., a governmental institution. That's not entirely accurate. The Fed is also a private organization all be it with (limited) oversight from the U.S. government. A better question would be, who owns the Fed? And here it gets interesting. From the Wikipedia article;
The Federal Reserve System is an independent government institution that has private aspects. The System is not a private organization and does not operate for the purpose of making a profit. The stocks of the regional federal reserve banks are owned by the banks operating within that region and which are part of the system. The System derives its authority and public purpose from the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress in 1913. As an independent institution, the Federal Reserve System has the authority to act on its own without prior approval from Congress or the President. The members of its Board of Governors are appointed for long, staggered terms, limiting the influence of day-to-day political considerations.
Basically, the shareholders of the Fed are private banks. That means that the institution that supplies the American public with money is not owned or directed by its people, but simply by the banks themselves. It's also stated that the Fed doesn't make a profit, but the "member banks" receive a guaranteed 6% interest per year. That's profit for the banks. When the U.S. government wants (new) money they go to the Fed who makes that money in return for U.S. treasury bonds. Basically that's a loan that has to be paid back with interest. How does the U.S. government finance this money lending system? By imposing income tax on its people.
This system guarantees that you as hardworking citizens become virtual slaves of the economy. The flow of money is channeled in such ways that the higher echelons of our world society will always profit from you. While this is called a monetary system and a 'free' market system, you're not as free as you might think. You're only as free as your purchasing power will allow.
The U.S. national debt is expected to increase to $16.3 trillion in 2012 and $20 trillion in 2015. Some people would say that basically means the U.S. is bankrupt. You do realize who's gonna pay that debt, don't you? Where that money goes, those are the people in charge. Just follow the money.
America, the world leader of the free market, has a debt of 12 trillion. That's 12.000 billion dollars. What's so funny about that (from my perspective) is that they call it "public debt." You can read the Wikipedia article here. Public debt basically means that every American citizen is financially responsible. How are you as an American citizen required to pay off that debt? With taxes of course. You can thank the politicians you choose who uphold the monetary system for that one. They make policy and ultimately you get the bill. But lets take a look at who the American people owe money.
While a quarter of that debt is made off various institutions and companies, it's far more interesting to look at the bigger slices of that debt. Roughly one quarter of the total debt is owed to "foreign and and international." Those are other countries such as China and Japan (who nearly have one trillion of the American debt each) but also other institutions such as "oil exporters" and banking centers. (By the way, the 5 trillion take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are excluded from the balance!) That gives countries such as China and Japan a great deal of leverage over American policy because basically they own a large part of the country. Nonetheless, the main creditor of American debt is the Federal Reserve (or Fed).
Who is the Fed? You would think it's the bank of the U.S., a governmental institution. That's not entirely accurate. The Fed is also a private organization all be it with (limited) oversight from the U.S. government. A better question would be, who owns the Fed? And here it gets interesting. From the Wikipedia article;
The Federal Reserve System is an independent government institution that has private aspects. The System is not a private organization and does not operate for the purpose of making a profit. The stocks of the regional federal reserve banks are owned by the banks operating within that region and which are part of the system. The System derives its authority and public purpose from the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress in 1913. As an independent institution, the Federal Reserve System has the authority to act on its own without prior approval from Congress or the President. The members of its Board of Governors are appointed for long, staggered terms, limiting the influence of day-to-day political considerations.
Basically, the shareholders of the Fed are private banks. That means that the institution that supplies the American public with money is not owned or directed by its people, but simply by the banks themselves. It's also stated that the Fed doesn't make a profit, but the "member banks" receive a guaranteed 6% interest per year. That's profit for the banks. When the U.S. government wants (new) money they go to the Fed who makes that money in return for U.S. treasury bonds. Basically that's a loan that has to be paid back with interest. How does the U.S. government finance this money lending system? By imposing income tax on its people.
This system guarantees that you as hardworking citizens become virtual slaves of the economy. The flow of money is channeled in such ways that the higher echelons of our world society will always profit from you. While this is called a monetary system and a 'free' market system, you're not as free as you might think. You're only as free as your purchasing power will allow.
The U.S. national debt is expected to increase to $16.3 trillion in 2012 and $20 trillion in 2015. Some people would say that basically means the U.S. is bankrupt. You do realize who's gonna pay that debt, don't you? Where that money goes, those are the people in charge. Just follow the money.
April 4, 2010
April 3, 2010
Probing Zeitgeist
I was looking at the ATS forum today and found a thread by a person who severely criticizes the Zeitgeist Movement. According to him it is "a hardcore front in the New World Order / Neo-Communist / Neo-Eugenicist-Transhumanist agenda." Quite a mouthful indeed and a typical attack on Zeitgeist often coming from Americans. I didn't go through all the pages but in the last part of that thread that person decided to make his ideas known on the Zeitgeist forum and ask a lot of questions. It is doubtful if the person was sincere about his questions but one of the other contributors on that forum replied immaculately.
QUESTIONS:
Even if you might dismiss the context of my outline above, please answer these questions:
I don't dismiss your context. I do think you are not being objective and you are projecting what you think this movement is about erroneously. Nevertheless, hit me with your questions...
A: How could the ZM be implemented without a totalitarian regime to enforce it? Don't forget the idea of the ZM is that its to be global in scale.
Through agreement. This is how anything works. The very monetary system we value is just that: an agreement. Same with our laws. They only are upheld because the majority of people agree to them. There is no totalitarian regime which would enforce anything this movement promotes. You're trying to find "NWO" where none exists.
B: How is it any different than Communism?
Well, believe it or not, this question gets responded to continuously on here. You might want to start off with some basic facts about communism though, to compare it:
Communism is run by a ruling class of politicians. A Resource Based Economy isn't. It is a systems approach using science. Communism is nationalistic. A Resource Based Economy is humanistic. Communism doesn't even begin to address the problem of scarcity by offering solutions, instead it offers rationing. A Resource Based Economy doesn't promote rationing, it promotes access.
You might want to read a recent response I had to another user who had a similar mis perception:
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/inde...limitstart=10#213264
C: What about private property rights? What are PJ and JF's views on this? What is yours?
I'm all for it, if you want it. There is nothing wrong with private property. The only reason anyone declares something to be their private property is because it ensures nobody else will claim it. In other words, out of fear of a scarcity driven fear of losing whatever piece of property. Do you see anyone declare the air around their house as their "private air"? You don't see that because it is so abundant. There is no scarcity of it, so the very idea sounds absurd. In a Resource Based Economy private property will no doubt be protected, however it will be irrelevant, because nobody would want to steal things from others when everything is readily accessible. Even people like Winona Ryder, who have all the money in the world and yet decide to shoplift...they only do so because of the thrill. Everyone who asks these questions is still thinking about these things in terms of how the world works right now. Yes, right now, the idea of "no private property" sounds very dangerous. But don't confuse this with the fact that when we talk about no private property in the future, it doesn't mean that some law will go into effect...rather it is an understanding based on rationally considering the implications of an access based resource system. If you have access to something, whenever you need it, what does it matter if it is "private" property or not? If you need something, and it's there, always, who cares if we call it mine, yours, ours, etc. Think of a family. A mom, a dad, two boys and girl. They decide to get a water filtration device. They all pitch in the same amount, and all have ACCESS to clean water whenever they need it. When someone says "whose water filter is that?" how do you think they should answer? Does it even matter? What happens when you begin to look at the entire WORLD'S population as a family like that? Do you see the idea?
D: Who will pay for it initially?
Pay for what? This is the wrong question. Money doesn't make the world go round. This is another common misconception. It is AGREEMENT and RESOURCES and TECHNOLOGY that makes the world go round. If we all reached the agreement that money was useless, then it would be so. If you have 0 dollars or if you have 10,000,000,000 dollars, it doesn't change the laws of chemistry. It doesn't make gravity any more powerful. Money doesn't do ANYTHING. It doesn't make more oil appear in the ground and it doesn't help reduce pollution.
Who will pay for it? Wrong question. The question is: where will the resources, technology and agreements come from. The answer: when enough people share the same value system, then these processes will get put into effect.
E: What about the jobs robots cant replace? And who decides who gets the crappy jobs or the good jobs?
Give an example. So called "crappy" jobs will be automated as best they can be, and with other jobs that the technology for automation doesn't exist yet, it could easily be done with remote control drones. For instance, instead of making a human do a nasty job, you have the human do a simulation of that job, so any unpleasant smell, or any danger (such as working on rooftops, at great heights, underwater, etc) can be done by a very fine-tuned remote controlled machine that the user can interface with, which has extremely delicate tactile controls. It would be like playing a video game. I know many people that would not even consider this a job, they would be fascinated by the very idea in fact.
For certain other jobs, there could be a volunteer based system. We have many of these today. Many people in the armed forces do so out of the desire to do their duty for their country, for their citizens, for honor, etc. This same reasoning would still exist, only that instead of doing your duty by grabbing a gun, you do so by driving around an EMT vehicle to save lives. Or you do so by working a certain job that machines are not yet able to automate. If only a small percentage of people did these jobs just once every few weeks, it would be more than enough. Certainly though, eventually automation would become so capable of even things like treating emergency victims, that it would be used for virtually everything, allowing humans to not have to do "work" but rather to make music, art, research, have fun, write books, without needing to do it for profit. Without needing to worry about funding, etc.
F: Are there ANY comparable examples of this system in history that worked?
Are there any comparable examples of the technology we have today, that we had in our history? Have we ever had the internet in the past? There were examples of slavery throughout our history. In fact slavery worked for thousands of years throughout our history. Does that mean we should use it because it is a time-tested method? Lets not look to the past to tell us what is possible in the future. We SHOULD look to the past to LEARN from it. But lets not look to the past to impose limitations on us.
G: What evidence exists to support the idea of the Resource Economy, that is the "abundance" part that is crucial to the feasability of the utopia.
It's actually the "access" that is most important. If you understand, fully, what a resource based economy is, you quickly realize it's not about resources, but rather the ACCESS to those resources. We have an OVER abundance of many resources today, such as grain, and yet...people in third world countries do not get any of it. Why? Because we restrict their access to it. You understand?
Now, when you produce abundance, this reduces the probability that anyone will not have access to something, but it's not enough to just have abundance, you must also create infrastructure to create availability, or, ACCESS to those goods. This is exactly what a Resource Based Economy suggests. Also, that word utopia is a misnomer. Nobody in this movement is under any sort of delusion that such a thing is even possible. So please, I hope you don't continue to use that word thinking that anyone here believes it is even a real possibility.\
H: Do you truly believe that there is any one size fits all approach to the entire globe and all of its social systems?
No, but that doesn't mean we can't promote science-based methods of providing everyone with access to goods and services that allow for everyone's human rights to be met, and an elevated quality of life at the same time. Diversity is great. If anything, our current money driven amalgamation-prone business models are what fail to recognize the diversity of human social systems and make everything monotonous and dull. Point that finger somewhere else. Not here.
I: How can you have an all powerful, global scale system of the greatest power ever considered, totally centralized, and expect that this thing representing an elite cabal would ever give up said power, no matter what or who has this power? And please spare me, we're talking about the global management of the entire earth and its resources. The ZM is no less subject to how things work out in practice historically, than is the USA, or am I mistaken??
You're actually very mistaken on this one. There is no control. There is using science to address technical problems, and using education and non-violence or aggression to deal with social concerns. We do not do this today. Today we have politicians try and make decisions that scientists should be making, and we have force and aggression used where education and non-violent communication should be used. We are completely backwards right now and most people know it deep in their minds...they know the way the world works is totally fucked. Nobody sits down and really REALLY thinks about it though. What are the real problems. You think getting back on the gold standard is going to do anything? What is gold? What can a pound of gold do for you? It's just as fiat as green money is today. The only thing giving it value is what? Our agreement that it has value. Can you eat gold if you're starving? Can gold prevent a heart attack? Can a pound of gold be used as energy to give power to your house for the week?
The reason we all agree to the value of gold, is because it is SCARCE. This is exactly the kind of ridiculous value system that the ZM doesn't agree with. There is no inherent value in gold. Anyone that is trying to tell you that, isn't thinking critically. Is a gold standard better than an interest-ridden, fractional reserve, money-from-thin-air system which we have today? YES! It is a good permanent solution? No. Not even close.
J: What about transition??
Explain to me the transition! My argument is that it would take tyranny just to maintain it. Yet how do you transition it in without dictatorial tyranny? How many decades would it take. What suffering is this goal worth to get there? Has anyone actually thought this experiment all the way thru?
There are many avenues here. If enough people want this thing to happen...they pool their resources together. Perhaps a small country would be interested in implementing such a model. This is a grass roots movement, it doesn't have every single answer. But I can tell you what we do know: the way things are going is really horrible. The way we see it COULD be going is much better. How to get it there exactly...there are many options. To say I know exactly how it will happen, I don't. That doesn't mean the facts don't stand.
K: Explain the transition to this idea that nobody will have to work anymore, please.
Transition from a 9-5 workday to a 10-4 work day with the same pay. Then to an 11 - 3 workday. Then to a 20 hour work week being "fulltime" while the pay remains the same as that which was 40 hours before. Then you go to a 10 hour work week, as more and more automation gets implemented, all the while, the actual paycheck, or more importantly, the person's ability to obtain food, goods, services, etc remains the same or goes up. That's called a transition.
L: How can you promise that this system wouldnt calculate its numbers, in order for the utpopia to work, and decide that major population numbers wouldnt need to be exterminated?
We are human beings. Also I asked you to not use that word utopia, as it is a strawman, and in fact a false label. I hope in the future you refrain from that word as NOBODY here is supporting anything of the sort. As far as "exterminating people" this is absolutely absurd. Murder is not what this movement is about. Whatsoever. The fact is this: Population tends to remain stable as education, standard of living, and access to basic services are met. Most developing countries have stagnant or FALLING population figures. The earth can sustain many more people than right now. However, indeed it is true that an ever-increasing population will eventually have to reach an equilibrium. I think a good approach is through education, understanding, and lots of hours spent talking about this issue. Will there ever be an "extermination" agenda? Absolutely not. This is almost offensive that you would think we would ever advocate something like that. Of course not.
M: After handing all power over to the AI god global computer network, how can you promise that it wont decide that all humans wont need to be turned into compost?
You've been watching too much TV, lol. No power will be given to the AI. This is quite funny you think of it this way. Look around you. Everything you own is technology. Does it have any "power" that you handed it? Is your car in control when you drive it? What about when you put it on cruise control? How about your thermostat in your living room? You set it to adjust the heat or coolness in the room such that it remains within a narrow defined temperature that you tell it to keep it at. Is it in control, or you?
Do you think anyone would ever want to give machines AI such that they can actually have feelings, etc? This is shit from science fiction movies that try and make the plot really scary and marketable. But it's not the real world. AI is not "self aware." Again, you simply have the wrong idea.
Machines don't make decisions. Machines execute the decisions we make. Machines are tools. We can choose to use tools in a negative way or a positive way. It's not the machines, but people who make them that are the determiners of what those machines will be used for.
N: How does PJ make the jump from the tyranny of the Federal Reserve system as being the problem, to money period as the problem to be eliminated?
Why don't you watch the lectures. Read the material. Go in the ventrilo and chat with some of us. Listen to his many many many blogtalk radio show addresses. If you end the fed it doesn't end the interest based banking system. It doesn't end the fact that "economic growth" will still be based off continuous unsustainable expansion and that businesses will still have ABSOLUTELY no incentive to stop destroying our environment and making cheap goods, and paying shitty wages, and perpetuating the stratified social system as it exists today. That's a short answer...but there's plenty more reasons. Go educate yourself. You'll find out very fast why this "back to the gold standard" talk is just plain BS. Read some of Stephen Zarlenga's books. Read Web of Debt.
Learn. Absorb. Understand.
O: Explain how we 'get rid of' 'money'. Will there not be a 'credits' sort of system? If there is, how is this different than 'money'? No 'monetary units' whatsoever? If not, please explain the model.
Replace "money" with "access to goods and resources." Try it.
That should be all. I hope we get to discuss all of this, as it would have to be pretty embarassing for you if this gets deleted. I mean, if you cant openly address criticisms then it already proves this system is no different than Stalinism.
I don't know of any thread that has been deleted because someone simply had questions contrary to the movement's tenets. Criticism is welcome here. It is trolling, blatant spamming, dehumanizing and offensive language, and lack of respect that doesn't get tolerated here too well. It's the same no matter where you go. If you want an example of real censorship, go run by the Alex Jones forums. THAT'S censorship. I know because I had multiple posts completely erased. Not just locked or moved. ERASED, and all because I presented information that differed from Alex's ideas. I wasn't offensive or rude in the least.
Anyways. I'll make you a bet. If you remain respectful, you don't result to ad hominem arguments, and you don't start calling people names, you will not get banned, this topic will not get locked, nor will it be deleted. Prove me wrong.
QUESTIONS:
Even if you might dismiss the context of my outline above, please answer these questions:
I don't dismiss your context. I do think you are not being objective and you are projecting what you think this movement is about erroneously. Nevertheless, hit me with your questions...
A: How could the ZM be implemented without a totalitarian regime to enforce it? Don't forget the idea of the ZM is that its to be global in scale.
Through agreement. This is how anything works. The very monetary system we value is just that: an agreement. Same with our laws. They only are upheld because the majority of people agree to them. There is no totalitarian regime which would enforce anything this movement promotes. You're trying to find "NWO" where none exists.
B: How is it any different than Communism?
Well, believe it or not, this question gets responded to continuously on here. You might want to start off with some basic facts about communism though, to compare it:
Communism is run by a ruling class of politicians. A Resource Based Economy isn't. It is a systems approach using science. Communism is nationalistic. A Resource Based Economy is humanistic. Communism doesn't even begin to address the problem of scarcity by offering solutions, instead it offers rationing. A Resource Based Economy doesn't promote rationing, it promotes access.
You might want to read a recent response I had to another user who had a similar mis perception:
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/inde...limitstart=10#213264
C: What about private property rights? What are PJ and JF's views on this? What is yours?
I'm all for it, if you want it. There is nothing wrong with private property. The only reason anyone declares something to be their private property is because it ensures nobody else will claim it. In other words, out of fear of a scarcity driven fear of losing whatever piece of property. Do you see anyone declare the air around their house as their "private air"? You don't see that because it is so abundant. There is no scarcity of it, so the very idea sounds absurd. In a Resource Based Economy private property will no doubt be protected, however it will be irrelevant, because nobody would want to steal things from others when everything is readily accessible. Even people like Winona Ryder, who have all the money in the world and yet decide to shoplift...they only do so because of the thrill. Everyone who asks these questions is still thinking about these things in terms of how the world works right now. Yes, right now, the idea of "no private property" sounds very dangerous. But don't confuse this with the fact that when we talk about no private property in the future, it doesn't mean that some law will go into effect...rather it is an understanding based on rationally considering the implications of an access based resource system. If you have access to something, whenever you need it, what does it matter if it is "private" property or not? If you need something, and it's there, always, who cares if we call it mine, yours, ours, etc. Think of a family. A mom, a dad, two boys and girl. They decide to get a water filtration device. They all pitch in the same amount, and all have ACCESS to clean water whenever they need it. When someone says "whose water filter is that?" how do you think they should answer? Does it even matter? What happens when you begin to look at the entire WORLD'S population as a family like that? Do you see the idea?
D: Who will pay for it initially?
Pay for what? This is the wrong question. Money doesn't make the world go round. This is another common misconception. It is AGREEMENT and RESOURCES and TECHNOLOGY that makes the world go round. If we all reached the agreement that money was useless, then it would be so. If you have 0 dollars or if you have 10,000,000,000 dollars, it doesn't change the laws of chemistry. It doesn't make gravity any more powerful. Money doesn't do ANYTHING. It doesn't make more oil appear in the ground and it doesn't help reduce pollution.
Who will pay for it? Wrong question. The question is: where will the resources, technology and agreements come from. The answer: when enough people share the same value system, then these processes will get put into effect.
E: What about the jobs robots cant replace? And who decides who gets the crappy jobs or the good jobs?
Give an example. So called "crappy" jobs will be automated as best they can be, and with other jobs that the technology for automation doesn't exist yet, it could easily be done with remote control drones. For instance, instead of making a human do a nasty job, you have the human do a simulation of that job, so any unpleasant smell, or any danger (such as working on rooftops, at great heights, underwater, etc) can be done by a very fine-tuned remote controlled machine that the user can interface with, which has extremely delicate tactile controls. It would be like playing a video game. I know many people that would not even consider this a job, they would be fascinated by the very idea in fact.
For certain other jobs, there could be a volunteer based system. We have many of these today. Many people in the armed forces do so out of the desire to do their duty for their country, for their citizens, for honor, etc. This same reasoning would still exist, only that instead of doing your duty by grabbing a gun, you do so by driving around an EMT vehicle to save lives. Or you do so by working a certain job that machines are not yet able to automate. If only a small percentage of people did these jobs just once every few weeks, it would be more than enough. Certainly though, eventually automation would become so capable of even things like treating emergency victims, that it would be used for virtually everything, allowing humans to not have to do "work" but rather to make music, art, research, have fun, write books, without needing to do it for profit. Without needing to worry about funding, etc.
F: Are there ANY comparable examples of this system in history that worked?
Are there any comparable examples of the technology we have today, that we had in our history? Have we ever had the internet in the past? There were examples of slavery throughout our history. In fact slavery worked for thousands of years throughout our history. Does that mean we should use it because it is a time-tested method? Lets not look to the past to tell us what is possible in the future. We SHOULD look to the past to LEARN from it. But lets not look to the past to impose limitations on us.
G: What evidence exists to support the idea of the Resource Economy, that is the "abundance" part that is crucial to the feasability of the utopia.
It's actually the "access" that is most important. If you understand, fully, what a resource based economy is, you quickly realize it's not about resources, but rather the ACCESS to those resources. We have an OVER abundance of many resources today, such as grain, and yet...people in third world countries do not get any of it. Why? Because we restrict their access to it. You understand?
Now, when you produce abundance, this reduces the probability that anyone will not have access to something, but it's not enough to just have abundance, you must also create infrastructure to create availability, or, ACCESS to those goods. This is exactly what a Resource Based Economy suggests. Also, that word utopia is a misnomer. Nobody in this movement is under any sort of delusion that such a thing is even possible. So please, I hope you don't continue to use that word thinking that anyone here believes it is even a real possibility.\
H: Do you truly believe that there is any one size fits all approach to the entire globe and all of its social systems?
No, but that doesn't mean we can't promote science-based methods of providing everyone with access to goods and services that allow for everyone's human rights to be met, and an elevated quality of life at the same time. Diversity is great. If anything, our current money driven amalgamation-prone business models are what fail to recognize the diversity of human social systems and make everything monotonous and dull. Point that finger somewhere else. Not here.
I: How can you have an all powerful, global scale system of the greatest power ever considered, totally centralized, and expect that this thing representing an elite cabal would ever give up said power, no matter what or who has this power? And please spare me, we're talking about the global management of the entire earth and its resources. The ZM is no less subject to how things work out in practice historically, than is the USA, or am I mistaken??
You're actually very mistaken on this one. There is no control. There is using science to address technical problems, and using education and non-violence or aggression to deal with social concerns. We do not do this today. Today we have politicians try and make decisions that scientists should be making, and we have force and aggression used where education and non-violent communication should be used. We are completely backwards right now and most people know it deep in their minds...they know the way the world works is totally fucked. Nobody sits down and really REALLY thinks about it though. What are the real problems. You think getting back on the gold standard is going to do anything? What is gold? What can a pound of gold do for you? It's just as fiat as green money is today. The only thing giving it value is what? Our agreement that it has value. Can you eat gold if you're starving? Can gold prevent a heart attack? Can a pound of gold be used as energy to give power to your house for the week?
The reason we all agree to the value of gold, is because it is SCARCE. This is exactly the kind of ridiculous value system that the ZM doesn't agree with. There is no inherent value in gold. Anyone that is trying to tell you that, isn't thinking critically. Is a gold standard better than an interest-ridden, fractional reserve, money-from-thin-air system which we have today? YES! It is a good permanent solution? No. Not even close.
J: What about transition??
Explain to me the transition! My argument is that it would take tyranny just to maintain it. Yet how do you transition it in without dictatorial tyranny? How many decades would it take. What suffering is this goal worth to get there? Has anyone actually thought this experiment all the way thru?
There are many avenues here. If enough people want this thing to happen...they pool their resources together. Perhaps a small country would be interested in implementing such a model. This is a grass roots movement, it doesn't have every single answer. But I can tell you what we do know: the way things are going is really horrible. The way we see it COULD be going is much better. How to get it there exactly...there are many options. To say I know exactly how it will happen, I don't. That doesn't mean the facts don't stand.
K: Explain the transition to this idea that nobody will have to work anymore, please.
Transition from a 9-5 workday to a 10-4 work day with the same pay. Then to an 11 - 3 workday. Then to a 20 hour work week being "fulltime" while the pay remains the same as that which was 40 hours before. Then you go to a 10 hour work week, as more and more automation gets implemented, all the while, the actual paycheck, or more importantly, the person's ability to obtain food, goods, services, etc remains the same or goes up. That's called a transition.
L: How can you promise that this system wouldnt calculate its numbers, in order for the utpopia to work, and decide that major population numbers wouldnt need to be exterminated?
We are human beings. Also I asked you to not use that word utopia, as it is a strawman, and in fact a false label. I hope in the future you refrain from that word as NOBODY here is supporting anything of the sort. As far as "exterminating people" this is absolutely absurd. Murder is not what this movement is about. Whatsoever. The fact is this: Population tends to remain stable as education, standard of living, and access to basic services are met. Most developing countries have stagnant or FALLING population figures. The earth can sustain many more people than right now. However, indeed it is true that an ever-increasing population will eventually have to reach an equilibrium. I think a good approach is through education, understanding, and lots of hours spent talking about this issue. Will there ever be an "extermination" agenda? Absolutely not. This is almost offensive that you would think we would ever advocate something like that. Of course not.
M: After handing all power over to the AI god global computer network, how can you promise that it wont decide that all humans wont need to be turned into compost?
You've been watching too much TV, lol. No power will be given to the AI. This is quite funny you think of it this way. Look around you. Everything you own is technology. Does it have any "power" that you handed it? Is your car in control when you drive it? What about when you put it on cruise control? How about your thermostat in your living room? You set it to adjust the heat or coolness in the room such that it remains within a narrow defined temperature that you tell it to keep it at. Is it in control, or you?
Do you think anyone would ever want to give machines AI such that they can actually have feelings, etc? This is shit from science fiction movies that try and make the plot really scary and marketable. But it's not the real world. AI is not "self aware." Again, you simply have the wrong idea.
Machines don't make decisions. Machines execute the decisions we make. Machines are tools. We can choose to use tools in a negative way or a positive way. It's not the machines, but people who make them that are the determiners of what those machines will be used for.
N: How does PJ make the jump from the tyranny of the Federal Reserve system as being the problem, to money period as the problem to be eliminated?
Why don't you watch the lectures. Read the material. Go in the ventrilo and chat with some of us. Listen to his many many many blogtalk radio show addresses. If you end the fed it doesn't end the interest based banking system. It doesn't end the fact that "economic growth" will still be based off continuous unsustainable expansion and that businesses will still have ABSOLUTELY no incentive to stop destroying our environment and making cheap goods, and paying shitty wages, and perpetuating the stratified social system as it exists today. That's a short answer...but there's plenty more reasons. Go educate yourself. You'll find out very fast why this "back to the gold standard" talk is just plain BS. Read some of Stephen Zarlenga's books. Read Web of Debt.
Learn. Absorb. Understand.
O: Explain how we 'get rid of' 'money'. Will there not be a 'credits' sort of system? If there is, how is this different than 'money'? No 'monetary units' whatsoever? If not, please explain the model.
Replace "money" with "access to goods and resources." Try it.
That should be all. I hope we get to discuss all of this, as it would have to be pretty embarassing for you if this gets deleted. I mean, if you cant openly address criticisms then it already proves this system is no different than Stalinism.
I don't know of any thread that has been deleted because someone simply had questions contrary to the movement's tenets. Criticism is welcome here. It is trolling, blatant spamming, dehumanizing and offensive language, and lack of respect that doesn't get tolerated here too well. It's the same no matter where you go. If you want an example of real censorship, go run by the Alex Jones forums. THAT'S censorship. I know because I had multiple posts completely erased. Not just locked or moved. ERASED, and all because I presented information that differed from Alex's ideas. I wasn't offensive or rude in the least.
Anyways. I'll make you a bet. If you remain respectful, you don't result to ad hominem arguments, and you don't start calling people names, you will not get banned, this topic will not get locked, nor will it be deleted. Prove me wrong.
April 1, 2010
Delivering Zeitgeist Flyers
Thought I could be a bit more pro-active with the Zeitgeist Movement so I ordered 1000 flyers at a nearby copying shop. The cost turned out to be a bit more then I had hoped, amounting up to €61, but I figure it's for a good cause. Will need to come up with a better solution in the future. Nonetheless I started delivering them to mailboxes in my neighborhood and although I did a relatively small area - when you look on the map - I delivered about 8-900 so far. Meaning I'm almost done with the 1K. Naturally I'll keep an eye out on how effective delivering those flyers really is. There are no illusions on my part that every person will read the flyer. Half of the addresses I visited will probably toss it away without a second look. I reckon that maybe 10% will look at it in some degree and half of those people will find it interesting. It has to start somewhere. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)