Atlas Flunked: Galt Goes Broke

On the internet I run into a lot of Ayn Rand supporters and they're kinda like the hardcore laissez faire capitalists of society. Their motto? Read Atlas Shrugged, full of wisdom! Of course it's just a shameless defense for self righteous profit seekers who try to sell you a kind of snake oil since they want to make you believe that an unrestricted free market will somehow magically creates a prosperous society. They hardly seem to realize that their actions have consequences for others, you can't be hyper individualists on a finite planet with billions of people...
Rand supporters are the entrepreneurs that seek the optimum playing field so that they as individuals can profit. Rand's shortsighted, selfish philosophy helps in that regard. What I find so hilarious is that they actually made movies of Ayn Rand's books and they did very poorly. For 3 movies they had a combined budget of $35 million and in the box office they acquired a revenue of $8.8 million. Which resulted in a loss of $26 million. Bad investment for sure! So with some sarcasm I can proclaim: 'Atlas Flunked!'

Newtown's Long Road

"No society that holds itself up as an example to the world should, as the United States does, brazenly shrug off what are clearly deep national character flaws when it comes to our love of guns or our celebration of hate politics."

-David Rothkopf
(January 2011, after the Jared Loughner shooting.)

Beginning Of The End?

I guess most people have watched the news by now concerning the protests in New York. People are rising up against the system if you will. The wealth inequality and government policies that seemingly only help big business are at the root of this civil discontent. Police clamped down hard on the protesters and earlier this week 80 to 100 where arrested as they centered around Wall Street. Just yesterday 700 people got arrested as they marched over the Brooklyn Bridge towards lower Manhattan. Safe to say the police and authorities are keeping a watchful eye out.

Personally I salute the protesters. It has been clear to me for a while now that America hardly can be called a democracy anymore. The people there basically have a choice between 2 political parties and both cater the big wealthy business interests first and the American people second if at all. The U.S. is a society where money and wealth comes first, the top 10% possess 80% of all financial assets. Given the circumstances, do you really expect people to behave when it is clear their needs are secondary to an elite? Elites that prey off the majority of the people will fall sooner or later.

14 trillion dollars of public debt, 2.3 million people incarcerated, some 40+ million people on food stamps and 1 in 6 beneath the poverty line, how long do you think this game will last? Capitalism itself is at fault here although that is something most people don't want to hear. Likewise, Ron Paul and Austrian Economics are not going to save you. Trying to solve the problems of capitalism with more capitalism is just plain idiotic. The U.S. already gave the free market full reign and the present situation is what you get; the market regulating itself at the expense of everything else.

I fear the worst for America. The system can't perpetuate itself under these conditions. Seeing how law enforcement reacts to public protests yet stays catatonic when financial institutions plunge the country and world into a depression, I predict that this is a sign of things to come. Challenging the establishment is not encouraged. Action versus reaction. When the protests become more intense so will the response of the authorities who will try to protect the current state of affairs. Maintaining order is on the top of their list.

Yet the American spirit is build upon liberty and freedom, as such any violation of that notion is not tolerated. A vicious circle is what comes next with the likelihood of America transforming into a police state. America is on the verge of implosion and to be brutally honest this is a 'logical' consequence of the system that the people have supported for so long. If you let politicians be lobbied (bribed) by corporate interests than they are going to serve those interests. If you let a (partially) private Central Bank issue the currency of a nation than they are going to reward themselves and leave you hanging with the bill.

It's simple. Give the power of the people away to institutions and politicians who think of their own self interest first, the people are going to wind up with the short end of the stick. You've got to find a balance between what's good for you and the nation as a whole. Exclusively pursuing self interest will eventually create a massive imbalance. That is where the American society is at.
Perhaps in 20 years from now people will talk about America in similar fashion as they did regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union. Maybe they will fully realize that an elite deciding what's best for themselves first and what is good for the nation and its people second will always lead to revolution.

The Mental Abyss

Last weekend a sociopath by the name of Anders Behring Breivik murdered 76 people in Norway. Without a shred of doubt a horrible act. Personally, I wonder how a person can reach a point in his mind where brutal, senseless violence and murder is perfectly justified. Because disagreeing with an ideology or politics and taking extreme violent action are two separate points widely apart on a linear scale. Disagreeing is one thing but making your disagreement known in barbaric fashion is quite something else. I truly wonder how a person can fall into the mental abyss like that.

Breivik seemed to disagree with the social-liberal policies of the Norwegian Labour Party. He is very much anti-Islam and against a multi-culture society which of course involves non-Christians. Yet in all that widespread hate he picked out his fellow countrymen, the young and the innocent of the Labour Party. Clearly we're dealing with a full blown psychopath here who wants to make a statement and maybe leave some sort of legacy behind for the like-minded. The latter is what scares me the most because what he is advocating on some level is that people should become a terrorist like him if they really want to change anything.

This we must avoid.

What scares me somewhat is that on a Dutch newspaper website 'de Telegraaf' (the Telegraph) similar to identical right-wing sentiments can be found in the commentary section of articles. Often these people are advocates of Geert Wilders' right-wing party PVV, which Anders Breivik listed as 'the only true conservative party in Europe.' That kind of makes you wonder since some of the commentary on the newspaper website is not that different from Breivik's rhetoric. Wilders also aims his sights on Islam and protecting the Christian identity, combined with verbal attacks on left-wing parties. Make no mistake, similarities are there.

The mental attitude of some people can be quite disturbing. Void of critical thought a number of Wilders supporters often make the shallow comment; 'he's right!' Another seemingly constant thrust of critique is to put blame on left-wing parties and also make them responsible for political decisions decades ago. 'It was leftist policies that got us into this mess!' Never mind of course that there never was a full left-wing government. The Dutch Labour Party, when it was in control, always had to share power with right-wing parties such as the CDA (Christian Democrats) and VVD (Liberals). Right wing influence was always there in the Netherlands but these people seem to be in denial over this fact.

That kind of mindless finger pointing and assigning blame is really scary. It displays a lack of insight and ultimately if we are not careful radicalization. Breivik apparently showed us the next step after becoming radical and extreme. I sincerely hope that a lot of disgruntled folks agree that we should not go there. Continuing the dialogue and re-examining our positions is the way to go.

First Oil

The other side of 'bringing democracy to the Middle East' apparently is securing economic interests. Not surprising. Has been going on for ages. You can wonder what's the most important with these military interventions because 'national interests' a.k.a. economic interests are often if not always there. And since dictators have been supported in the past by the West you can also equally wonder about 'spreading democracy.' Full article here.

Continued Madness

This sort of madness seems to be getting more and more common these days here in my native Holland. In the province of Limburg and in the town of Hoensbroek, a 41 year old man flipped after an altercation with a neighbor in the street. The argument seems to have been over (the height) of some conifer trees! The disturbed man grabbed an ax and a torch, killed his neighbor across the street and seriously wounded another person. Shortly thereafter the police arrived on the scene where they were challenged by the disturbed individual who apparently dared them to shoot. After a warning shot and threatening gestures from the man the police shot to kill.
Really disturbing to see these kinds of violent, utterly useless outbreaks. I recall that as a kid (some 30 years ago) that a murder was committed in my hometown. Most people were shocked at the time because it was practically unheard of. A few months ago we had a maniac here in Holland who went on a shooting spree in a mall. Murder and senseless violence is getting more and more common. That's scary.

O.B.L. K.I.A.

Some startling news this morning. Osama Bin Laden was killed during a raid by special forces on a compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan. It was often assumed Bin Laden was hiding out in the mountains or rural areas under the protection of tribal leaders but nothing could farther from the truth. He was hiding in a (for Pakistan) luxury house, surrounded by 3 to 5 meter walls with barbwire. An interesting bit of information, and what the intelligence services also noticed, is that garbage was burned on the grounds. Safe to assume that Bin Laden rarely if never left the grounds.

In a firefight that lasted 40 minutes (!) Bin Laden was shot in the head along with other accomplices. On the way out a special forces helicopter malfunctioned and had to be destroyed. Osama's body was taken (for identification) but will be buried at sea according to Islamic law which requires the burial within 24 hours of death. Detailed photographs and DNA samples will undoubtedly prove this was public enemy number 1, although the results of the DNA testing will take a couple of days. I'm sure footage will be forthcoming of the burial ceremony and any research done on the case minutely documented.

Personally, I'm glad they caught him but I would have rather seen him in a court of law. Right now you can bet that many Al Qaeda supporters are infuriated and planning revenge. All that martyr stuff they often advocate will surely be ignited into bigger proportions. When you have such a person like Bin Laden in a courtroom and show (the world) all the atrocities he committed, that sends a far more objective and powerful message than his quick death in a gun battle. At least, that's the way I see it.


To my amazement, a spontaneous celebration started in front of the White House and on Ground Zero. People were cheering and chanting "U.S.A." and waving the flag. Total party time. Many news channels also reported this case with an air of relief and happiness. News websites idem ditto. The death of Osama Bin Laden and his associates was presented as a good thing and everybody was 'dancing' to that tune.

Seeing that brought me back in my memory. Ten years ago just after the 9/11 attacks I watched a video segment from Al Jazeera, the Arabian television network. In it they showed Palestinians who just found out about the terrorist attacks on the United States. I was appalled to see that many Palestinians were cheering and dancing, waving flags of Hamas. At the time I was thinking; 'how on Earth can you rejoice over the deaths of so many others?' And to be totally honest, I felt somewhat of the same sentiment today watching the Americans celebrating.

Dutch Shooting

Shocking news today here in Holland. A disturbed person with an automatic rifle killed 7 people (so far) and wounded 15 more (some are in critical condition) in a mall in the town of 'Alphen aan den Rijn.' Apparently 24 year-old Tristan van der Vlis was responsible for the shooting. He committed suicide. There are pictures of his remains which I wont put up here on this blog. He was wearing camouflage trousers and a black sweater. Sources mention he was no stranger to the police and one of his previous felonies was possession of a firearm and abuse of his girlfriend. What really motivated him is anyones guess.

It's just mind-blowing to see these kinds of outbursts of violence. Last week there was mass murder in a school in Rio. 2 years ago in Holland, a person by the name of Karst Tates tried to kill the Royal Family with his car. He didn't succeed in that yet did manage to kill 8 people when driving his car through the crowd that was watching the (Royal) parade. I'm having a hard time fathoming why these things happen. What drives these people to go so very wrong? Professional psychologists really should look into this and do studies on it.

Nuclear Morons

Don't we live in a fine European democracy? You know what the European Parliament decided last weekend? They decided to raise the E.U. radiation norms for Japanese import. Meaning that previously irradiated food that would have been automatically rejected can now enter the European zone unrestricted. In fact the European radiation standard is higher than the Japanese. In Japan the food available for consumption will contain less radiation than what the European consumer will get. I really have to ask; 'how stupid can you be as a member of the European Parliament?'

It's funny how strict laws can be bend by those in power. The latest example here is of course done for economical reasons. They decided to give Japanese exports a break and by default their economy. Otherwise no country in the world would import any kind of Japanese food (or other products) that could possibly contain radioactive materials. The elected officials, in their infinite wisdom, decided once again that economics have to prevail over public health because suddenly we are allowed more of the nasty stuff. What would a Japanese manufacturer do? Dispose of his contaminated product or ship it overseas for profit?

Now I don't want to sound too heartless. Clearly Japan got a bum deal with the earthquake and tsunami, and the failing nuclear plant at Fukushima. My sympathies to those who lost loved ones. I also feel for the workers at the nuclear plant who worked non-stop at the problems and risk their lives for a triple salary. Once again the fault must go to the ones who ultimately made the decision to build nuclear reactors at such a dangerous place and for keeping the plant running even though it was already beyond its 40 year warranty. Economical decisions are to blame.

Sadly enough I saw a lot of commentary on a Dutch newspaper website just after the earthquake and where not much was still known about the radioactive contamination at Fukushima. Many people kept supporting nuclear energy because it's relatively cheap and less polluting than coal/oil/bio-matter. Until something goes very wrong that is. That in itself is strange because I thought that people had learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Fukushima seems to be latest reminder of how dangerous nuclear energy in fact is.

I recall reading a newspaper article a few years back and it was about what would happen to all the buildings and constructions the human race has made if we were to disappear one day. How long would it take for all the evidence that shows that we were here to erode away? Wood rots away in hundreds of year. Concrete and metal takes thousands of years. You know what that article mentioned as the last measurable proof that we humans ever inhabited this Earth? The nuclear reactor cores would still be emitting radiation and therefore be detectable after a hundred thousand years. If that's a testament to our ingenuity I don't know.

The Egyptian Dilemma

The Egyptian regime change was constantly on the news the last few weeks. The people of Egypt were tired of president Mubarak who ruled the country like a dictator for 30 years. The uprising seemed to have blown over from Tunisia with the recent ousting of president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. That aspect alone, a people's revolt, in two Islamic countries and in quick succession is remarkable by itself. These regimes lasted for decades and were brutal to its own people. There's another aspect which stands out even more if you ask me.

In the media, especially in the U.S. but also in Europe, Mubarak was quickly dropped as a good choice for the people of Egypt. The media is full right now with segments where political analysts state that the country should move towards freedom and democracy. Not unsound advice mind you, but why is this so out of the ordinary? Well, because often those same political analysts you see in the news right now supported Mubarak for many years. There's definitely some hypocrisy involved here. Mubarak was supported by the U.S. because of his willingness to accept and make peace with the state of Israel and because of the clamp down on (religious) extremists elements in his own country.

Mubarak was considered an ally in the geopolitical arena for decades, yet right now he's dropped like a bad habit. Also interesting to note are the weapon sales to Egypt, both the Egyptian Air Force and Army are largely equipped with American military hardware. Such deliveries can only come with the approval of the U.S. government. Should this large weapons inventory fall into the hands of more extremist elements after the regime change the U.S. and Israel would have a major problem. What's most remarkable is how the media currently harps the freedom and democracy tune while they hardly reflect on the support Mubarak had for decades. If Egypt will reach a state of democracy is anyone's guess.

It's not unreasonable to assume that politicians and intelligence services in countries outside Egypt are very concerned about the situation. History has shown that security and stability takes precedent over freedom and democracy. You just have to recognize the ugly truth, the U.S. has always done business with dictators as long as it was in their interest. Freedom and democracy were of little concern in places like Chili, Iraq, Argentina and Egypt. When dictators like Samuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein stopped playing ball it became a different matter altogether. How the Egyptian dilemma is going to play out is still uncertain. My guess is that the military will still hold a major influence over domestic policies and will continue to have the support of outside sources even if the country attains more democracy.

The Other Side Of Zeitgeist

For some time now I find it fascinating how Americans view their own society and how it should be improved. Things aren't going well at the moment, economy wise, so many people complain. American culture is quite remarkable since practically everyone hinges their arguments on the constitution and see the fallout of the current economic turmoil as an infraction on their rights. Naturally they fear increased taxation which is not totally unjustified. How else can the 14 trillion dollar public debt be repaid? Yet being against social programs which will acquire funds in the form of taxes will also diminish the accessibility of said programs and their effectiveness for society as a whole.

What it boils down to, and what seems to a typical American character trait, is that people don't want to pay for anything if it doesn't help them directly. They see paying taxes as a violation of their rights, in this case the right to happiness a.k.a. making lots of money. After all, the American Dream is based on collecting money and wealth, not giving it away. The latter is what permeates through American culture and what is at the core of the dissatisfaction with the government. Is adopting such a philosophy healthy in the long run? I sincerely doubt it, but lets delve more into the subject matter. On the internet I often see the same argument coming up and it goes something like this;

"True prosperity and freedom comes from individual liberties based on private property right upheld by voluntary contracts enforced by a small local government."

What's so fascinating is that practically all of the political flows in the U.S. advocate this ideology one way or another. The GOP, the Republican Party often speaks of small government, yet at the same time they are also strongly against regulating the market. (And what aspect of society caused the 2008 credit crisis?) Democrats only differ in that they want to tax a bit more for social programs such as healthcare. Libertarians such as Ron Paul use the phrase above as well but not many people seem to realize that he is a laissez-faire capitalist and for the free market, against minimum wage and for low taxation of corporations. (How's that trickle-down effect working for you?)

From an outsiders perspective there isn't much difference between those major political flows in the U.S. They more or less state the same thing with minor deviations. All of them flow towards the same core pillars; prosperity, freedom, individual liberties, private property and small government. Yet these pillars, whether you realize it or not, are strongly connected to something else entirely; capitalism and the free market system. When you dig really deep down, what causes the friction between what you consider infringement upon your rights? It's your own ideology and the free market system!

What causes the 'friction' are the 'big business interests.' Wall Street, which is a direct result of the free market system, has a tremendous influence on domestic policy. Yet Wall Street is based on the same pillars. Prosperity, that which generates a profit. Freedom, the freedom to invest and buy property or stock. Private property, that which you can buy and call your own or sell. Small government is what Wall Street wants as well. Less regulations the better. Knowing this and that there isn't much difference in ideology, something else must be at the cause of the friction.

It's selfism and protectionism. What Wall Street is doing right now is simply trying to make money any way they can and protecting their "property" at the same time. This is what collides with those less fortunate, who are preoccupied with the same mechanics - protecting their self interest - and find themselves at the short end of the stick. The irony here is that there isn't much difference between the mindset of an investment banker on Wall Street and a shop owner in small town U.S.A. Both are selfish and ignorant, and focused on making money. It's the people just like you that caused the credit crisis of 2008.

That's the ugly truth, and no small government or less taxation is ever going to change anything. Small businesses eventually grow into big businesses with massive wealth and big interests. Saying that true prosperity and freedom comes from the system is sticking your head in the sand because at one point you'll simply have conflicting interests by different layers of society. It's the mindset, the ideology itself that causes the problems. You live in a world that's basically a corporatocracy and where money comes first, and people are secondary. That is the root cause.

Revealing Poll

America's unemployed voice little confidence in the government's ability to help them. The survey, conducted after the national election in November, found that only 30% of the unemployed are more hopeful about an economic recovery because of the election. When the survey group was asked to choose between President Barack Obama and the Republicans in Congress about whom they trust to do a better job handling the economy, "neither" won at 41%. One third (32%) chose the president and far fewer -- just 17% -- picked congressional Republicans. Less than one in 10 trust "both."

Excerpt from a CNN poll conducted by Professor Van Horn. More here.

Bank Run Stop - Politicians Make Me Pop

Some startling piece of legislation is in the works over here in Holland. Dutch ministers of the Finance and Justice departments, Opstelten and de Jager, are working on a new law that prohibits people from publicly calling for a 'bank run,' should they do so they can be fined (to a maximum of €19.000) or imprisoned (up to 4 years). The ministers argue that calling for a bank run can lead to situations that can't be controlled. The legislation is also aimed at public figures who have authority in the financial world. The main aim, according to the ministers, is to provide stability and a climate of trust for the banks.

Not strange in itself of course since a bank run equals bankruptcy, yet what is so woefully missing and what politicians conveniently leave out is why a bank is so vulnerable in the first place when a lot of people withdraw their cash. And the answer is very simple; they basically don't have that money. Banks are required to have 8% of their total amount of money in house, the rest is lend out. That means that when that amount of 8% is exceeded they are basically broke.

Most people know what the fallout of a bank run is. The money somehow simply evaporates, unless of course when the government steps in rescuing the bank with taxpayer money like we've seen a number of times during the credit crisis of 2008. What's even more startling is this; the banks didn't have the money to begin with because most of the banks credit is created out of thin air because of fractional reserve banking. Banks can create money out of nothing, they do lend money from central banks (at interest) but are free to create additional money should the need arise.

This is what really ticks me off. Banks have an enormous advantage, they create a great deal money from nothing, loan that money to costumers. The customer is hold fully accountable, no payments (on time) means loss of property. Here's a fair question in my opinion; does it work the other way around?
I don't think it does. Bank runs show that even the rumor of a financial institution failing will actually cause it to fail. How stable are banks really to begin with? What recent history has shown is that when banks fail the taxpayer gets the bill. Even in my own country, Holland, banks were bailed out with €35 billion in taxpayer money. Today it was abundantly clear once more that even our own politicians rather work with a bandaid and forbid people to use the word bank run in public instead of addressing the root causes of a bank's inherent instability, but seeing how many former politicians wind up as CEO's of banks I'm not that surprised.

"Promoting Democracy"

Anger Management

Ed Stein made a wonderful commentary on his website displaying the sentiments that are currently so abound in U.S. society just before the elections.

Anger is the emotion of the day. Homeowners are angry. The unemployed are angry. Voters are angry. Conservatives are especially angry, and Tea Partiers are the angriest of all. A New York Times poll shows that 6 out of 10 voters don’t like their own representative. And, by gosh, we’re going to throw them out, those who haven’t already been thrown out in the primaries. They’re all a bunch of greedy politicians beholden to lobbyists who’ve lost touch with the voters. So we’re going to make John Boehner, the most beholden to lobbyists of them all, Speaker of the House. And we’re going to put the folks back in power who got us in this mess in the first place, because, by gosh, the people we replaced them with two years ago didn’t get us out of it fast enough. Because they’re socialists, we think, or something worse, like Big Government Big Taxing Big Spenders and we need to boot them out and replace them with the Small Government Tax Cutting Big Spenders who waged two wars and cut taxes without paying for it, and who want Big Government out of the business of telling the bankers who destroyed the economy they can’t do that again, because that’s Socialism or Government Meddling in the Marketplace–or something. And we don’t want Obamacare because if we all have health insurance it will lead us down the path to what those stupid Europeans have, which is much better health care than we have, but they do it with Socialism and Big Government, and we don ‘t do that, even if it means that w’re sicker and we die younger and we go bankrupt because of medical costs. And mostly we’re angry, ANGRY with Obama because we’ve noticed that he’s just not quite like us.

As deeply satisfying as it is to feel that righteous rage burning deep inside, I’m beginning to think that blind fury is not necessarily the best approach to solving our problems, or to choosing a government.

Perhaps instead we should get some help with that anger problem of ours.

TZM: Recipe For Disaster?

This post is a response to Muertos' blog where he asserts that putting a Resource Based Economy into practice will ultimately lead to disaster. While I agree on some points I'm of the opinion that other arguments are irrelevant in the larger scheme of things and also I can't escape the notion that a portion of Muertos' article is based on projection and fear-mongering. He bases his claim on the works of author and professor James C. Scott, who wrote many books about political science and anthropology. The book 'Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed,' is used to display the alleged inherent faults of a Resource Based Economy.

“[High modernism] is best conceived as a strong, one might even say muscle-bound, version of the self-confidence about scientific and technical progress, the expansion of production, the growing satisfaction of human needs, the mastery of nature (including human nature), and, above all, the rational design of social order commensurate with the scientific understanding of natural laws. It originated, of course, in the West, as a by-product of unprecedented progress in science and technology.”

Muertos starts off with this quote from the book and says; 'This definition describes the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project perfectly.' No argument here. Professor Scott formulated it quite nicely. A RBE is in fact based on what scientific and technical progress can do and I find no fault in calling it 'high modernism.' (Perhaps an even better definition that applies here is trans-humanism.) You simply have to look at our current state of technology and it's remarkably easy to fathom what is possible these days. Durable types of energy are a scientific fact. Much of what a Resource Based Economy proposes is actually feasible with our current day technology. In turn that technology CAN create abundance and there's nothing unrealistic about this notion. The major obstacle at this point is simply the monetary system. We have the technology, we have the resources, but we don't have the money. The next obstacle is the human condition, because we are all conditioned to think in certain ways.

That also brings us to 'human nature' and the concept of 'nature vs nurture.' Human nature is often attributed to acts of aggression towards each other like that is a 'natural' thing.' Is it really? Are we all just animals? Personally, I think humans are born with a build-in 'survival mode' but as your brain develops it is capable of so much more. When the brain starts developing, you, just like a computer, start receiving programming. The next stage of development is the programming interacting with the environment. If I had to put it in an equation I would say that 10% is nature and that 90% is nurture. A person is fed and cared for from birth, we don't grow up in the wild, we grow up in protective surroundings. Therefore I don't attribute much to instinct, most of the human condition is taught and influenced by the environment. Which brings me to this quote from Muertos.

"In simpler terms, high modernist projects are doomed to fail because they are profoundly naïve about human behavior, institutions and culture."

Several things here. I agree with Muertos that if you would put everyone on the planet in a RBE tomorrow there's a high probability it would fail, that's because most people right now are simply preoccupied with their own self interest and needs, how trivial that may be. Stick those people in another world and they'll just continue their old habits. Change or behavioral modification takes time.
Human behavior at the moment is basically centered on self interest. You basically go to work because you earn money and that in turn enables you to buy food and all the other necessities of life. You work at an institution for the interest of that institution because that in turn serves your interest. Culture is largely shaped by the most dominant institutions, be it churches, political parties, media and so on. That is the world we live in. Once you start comparing that world to a Resourced Based Economy where everything is provided for without charge through technology, the average person would be skeptical because it's such a stark contrast to the world we live in today. Naturally, people start to wonder what the cost might be and what they risk to lose.

High modernist projects are not inherently naive, it's the people themselves who wonder about their own self interest. You can bring it all back to psychology and ideology. The Venus Project takes that into account by advocating a holistic approach. It appeals, in large, to our higher nature which of course is something some people have a hard time getting at. It proposes; what is good for everyone is also good for yourself, but in the egomaniac oriented society that we have today that view is of course the other way around. What is good for myself, is good for everyone. It becomes a matter of (global) social therapy and it will take time. The Venus Project, in my opinion, is a futuristic ideal. It lays the premise of understanding that ideal on emotional and intellectual maturity, something that is scarce right now in our world. However, it must start somewhere. You can call that a Project in many ways. Addressing both the inner- and outer world.

"High modernists simply assume that people and their behaviors can be neatly crammed into well-ordered boxes that will operate efficiently. Their contempt for the idea of human nature is a by-product of this myopia. History shows, however, that these types of projects always fail. When a high modernist project is undertaken by an authoritarian state, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the zeal to achieve unrealistic goals combined with the state’s increasing efforts to streamline the process often results in death and suffering on a colossal scale." (Muertos)

'High modernism' is an extension of technological progress. Whether it will succeed or not is dependent on the psychological progress of the people. One can't fully work without the other. A high modernist like myself doesn't assume that everything will fall into place when a RBE is suddenly put into place. We have to take into account the level of psychological maturity. There is no contempt for the idea of human nature, if there would be any contempt at all it would be for the human condition, not for human nature which is in fact negligible. It's human conditioning, people are born and raised in a culture that imposes a set of values on them. Those values are accepted (without question) to a large degree. The Venus Project examines those values and proposes new ones. It's not that humans and their trains of thought are ignored, other options are simply presented.
Bringing up the Soviet Union as an example of failed high modernism is questionable. First of let me say that I haven't met a Zeitgeist supporter yet that supports such a society like that in the U.S.S.R. in the previous century. Nobody is waiting for another totalitarian regime. Period. Making the connection between the Soviet Union during the Cold War period and a futuristic society like the Venus Project is in fact a false association. There's already the assumption (projection) that these two models are highly similar if not identical. They are not.
The U.S.S.R. was dependent on the technological level of the time period, as you know technology evolves. Much more technologies are available right now that weren't there in the time of the Soviet Union. More importantly they were part of the monetary system and bound by the restrictions of finance. Lastly, they were a separate part of a global dynamic system and forces were at work hampering their progress. It's too simplistic to say they failed because of unrealistic goals, it's much more complex.
Could the Soviet Union finance their entire society so that everyone was fed and housed in luxury? No, they couldn't. In a monetary system there simply isn't enough money to do that. The system wont allow it because the system is dependent on money circulation and economic growth of itself. Secondly, where do you think most of the money was spend on in the Soviet Union during the Cold War era? On defense, not on its people, because there were other nations in the world with their own national interests and agenda's. That's what I mean by 'dynamic forces' because there were other hardline-ideological states, such as the U.S., who made the need for military expenditures absolutely necessary. In the end the Soviet Union was bankrupt.
Comparing the Soviet Union to high modernism or the Venus Project and make the proclamation that they failed and will fail is very simplistic, if not outright false. A myriad of factors contributed to the decline of the Soviet Union, not high modernism by itself.

"In the 1950s, the government of Brazil was eager to forge a totally new capital city, one that would be functional, efficient, beautiful and above all ultra-modern. [snip] No one congregates in the broad open squares because there’s nothing to do there—no shops, no places of social interaction, no reason to go there other than to be there. Everyone hates the apartment buildings because they’re bland, blocky and utterly devoid of any sort of character." (Muertos)

Next point in the critique on the Venus Project. Modern cities are boring to live in and lack character. That's what it basically amounts up to. The city of Brasilia is mentioned as an example. Listing such an example is strictly done in order to associate a city such as Brasilia and the negative connotations that already accompany it, with a modern (circular) city the Venus Project proposes. Classic example of projection. The main problem here is that there are not enough recreation facilities for the people that live in that town. If there were shopping malls and topless bars, most people would have said that it is a helluva place to live in. The solution here is very simple, add places for recreation. Oddly enough, and you can read it up in Fresco's books or interviews, he actually suggests a 'recreation belt' in the cities he proposes.
The problem with cities such as Brasilia, aside from the lack of recreational facilities, is that over time they get outdated. New building materials, ways of construction and technology make such a place look old and inefficient within decades. Yet there isn't enough money (of course) to constantly update and upgrade such a city and bring it up to more modern standards and the wishes of its people. In our monetary system this would be a hard thing to do since the cost would be tremendously high. In a Resource Based Economy I would suspect this would be an easy thing to do since no money would be involved, just the availability of resources would be the main issue. Cities such as Brasilia aren't an example of high modernism failing, they are an example of poor (long term) planning and the restrictions that the monetary system lays upon improvements.

"It’s the ultimate pinnacle of high modernist folly, and would invariably collapse into a disaster so bloody and chaotic that it would make Stalin’s forced collectivization look benign by comparison." (Muertos)

Muertos continues by making a connection between Stalin's brutal policies and high modernism, the latter being the core element of the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project. While I have my doubts that Stalin's policies can be termed 'high modernism' in the truest sense of the word, of course they can be construed as forced social change. However making the connection between a part of history that was costly in lives and claiming such matters will automatically happen in the future on an even greater scale, clearly falls into the category of fear mongering.
If anything, most Zeitgeist supporters are well aware of their history and no one is seeking a repetition of a communist society with all its downfalls. Any intelligent person knows that forced social change will be met by opposition. Subsequently, this is not about advocating forced social change, it's about finding common ground and shared values. We are in the stage of making a proposal and creating awareness, but if you start making negative associations than you're already figuratively throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In my book, such an act would be intellectually dishonest.

“First and foremost, high modernism implies a truly radical break with history and tradition….All human habits and practices that were inherited and hence not based on scientific reasoning–from the structure of the family and patterns of residence to moral values and forms of production–would have to be reexamined and redesigned…" (Scott)

I don't see that much fault with professor Scott's reasoning so far. The only important matter that is absent here is that high modernism can be seen as a constant, and therefore always influencing tradition, human habits and practices. New discoveries in technology change the culture all the time. There is no stopping that. The invention of the telephone enabled people to communicate over vast distances, cellular phones made it even more easier and people suddenly could communicate when they were mobile. It transformed culture. The invention of the airplane literally opened up the world since people could travel everywhere on the globe. The invention of the computer opened up a world of itself, communication, calculation and a host of other utilities. Culture is constantly being transformed by new technological inventions and applications.
The point here is that if you would take the 'high' out of high modernism, tradition, human habits and practices would still be challenged with every step on the path of technological evolution. High modernism takes the change to its fullest potential, that's why it conflicts so much with conservative elements who wish that things remain as they are. If you would remove the 'high' out of high modernism the conflict itself will remain, it just becomes a matter of intensity. Maybe conservative elements need to realize that Pandora's box is already opened. Not many people are willing to return to simpler lifestyles. Inventions such as the telephone and the computer are here to stay, they will only go away if something better is invented. In this regard it also becomes clear that change is a constant.

"The sources of this view are deeply authoritarian. If a planned social order is better than the accidental, irrational deposit of historical practice, two conclusions follow. Only those who have the scientific knowledge to discern and create this superior social order are fit to rule in the new age. Further, those who through retrograde ignorance refuse to yield to the new scientific plan need to be educated to its benefits or else swept aside.” (Scott)

I'm not sure high modernism would automatically lead to a deeply authoritarian society. One can learn from mistakes in the past and as such it is no guarantee such a thing would happen in the future. Personally, I was under the impression that the Venus Project sets its aims a little higher by focusing strongly on matters such as freedom and equality - ensuring the necessities of life for all the people in the world. Many states in the past (and right now), democratic or otherwise, couldn't even do that for their own people.
But lets be totally honest here. Can high modernism lead to a totalitarian state? Yes, of course. Human nature or human conditioning, take your pick, can lead to elitist behavior where one thinks the majority of the people are too ignorant or unintelligent and that decisions have to be made for them. Yet, is this exclusive to high modernism? No, not at all.
One only needs to take a hard look at the world of politics and you would realize that such thought patterns are happening all the time. In a democracy politicians make decisions for you, but who benefits the most from those decisions, the people or the institution/establishment?

In our history, how many nations made the transition from democracy to totalitarian states? Quite a few actually. Disregarding the eastern European states that fell under the influence of the Soviet Union there were a number of states across the globe who found themselves under a (military) dictatorship, often supported by the U.S. I might add. High modernism doesn't seem to be the main cause. It's the self interest of a group.

It's fairer to say that a recipe for disaster is always present. It is fueled by socio-economic differences and inequality, which are brought on by the self interest of the most dominant institutions. These institutions shape society, not high modernism by default. High modernism interacts with culture and influences it but it is the most dominant institution(s) that has the final say. Just take a look at modern day U.S., big business interests basically rule the country and it's all about the money - and has been so for the last 100 years. Thirty to forty million people don't have proper healthcare and are not insured or underinsured. The health of the people is not the main priority. The public debt is now around 14 trillion dollars, have you heard one bank say they are going to help making the U.S. financially sound? No of course not, they are pursuing their own self interest which is profit in this case. If the U.S. economy should totally fail you can bet your last dollar those banks will move their main office to another country and leave the American people out to dry.

In case you didn't notice not every new technology is implemented right away. Have you seen many cars that run on hydrogen or strictly on durable battery power? Not that many, right? Now, why is that - why wasn't new technology adopted right away? Answer, because it's not in the interest of those in power. If hydrogen or battery power was used, the oil industry and a large part of the economy which is based on that would be severely diminished. That's why they don't do it. Self interest, profit and the circulation of money (cyclical consumption) are the most dominant values in our global society, not the people or any sense of equality. It is profit and the pursuit of self interest that causes all the ills in the world. Maybe this is the true recipe for disaster.

Professor Scott already formulated it wisely, 'a planned social order is better than the accidental, irrational deposit of historical practice.' Perhaps we can postulate that the Venus Project is a planned social order and better then the one we have now? Implementing it is another matter altogether and I fully acknowledge that it will cause a great deal of friction with our current values. Therefore you can't make such changes right away. It simply wouldn't work and elitist behavior is right around the corner when the new values challenge the old ones.
What we need is patience. Radical changes must take time in order to avoid conflict. What we need is education. People should increase their knowledge of the world and not only discover what drives its people but also those things we have in common. Education is one of the most valuable assets a person can have. People should learn about themselves and ask themselves why they do certain things. Hopefully they'll realize that the next person is not that different. Lastly, we must keep the dialogue going and hope for more understanding between our fellowmen. In that spirit I hope that Muertos and other critics of the Venus Project have learned something. Us Zeitgeist and Venus Project supporters don't want chaos, we want a better life just like you do.

Ed V.

Dynasty

The young dude on the left is succeeding the old dude on the right. I'm talking of course about Kim Jong Un following in his fathers footsteps Kim Jong Il which was all over the news the last couple of weeks. First and last names are probably swooped in North Korea now that I think about it. Il "inherited" the leadership of North Korea from his father as well, Kim Il-Sung. Ok, now I'm pretty confused with the names.
Lets take another approach. Grandfather took control of the communist party in North Korea during and after world war 2. His son followed him as president of that country, sorta, and now that the son is ill the grandson is next in line. Ummm, silly question maybe but doesn't that sound like a dynasty? Something comparable to the kings and queens in former times? When leaders of a country remain in a single family, I think that terminology qualifies.
In fact, I've heard some political commentators phrase it in similar fashion as well. They also compared North Korea to the empire of Japan prior and during world war 2, and to be honest, viewing developments from a distance I must concur. North Korea is very much different than other communist states such as China, the Soviet Union or Eastern European states before the fall of the Berlin Wall. When the reigns are passed onto the family members it becomes pretty obvious that a dynasty is taking place. Political ideology is intertwined with a single, elevated family. And that makes the North Korean society that much more peculiar. Maybe even nasty.

Wilders On Trial

He's on trial now, Geert Wilders, for inciting hatred. Wilders is a right-wing politician and I suppose he can be compared to hardliners of the American Republican Party although I suspect the latter are more wise in public - generally speaking. The Dutch politician however spews out the most hard speech, particularly against Islam, that you have to wonder about things. One of the most remarkable matters is that he receives a lot of support, from the voters that is. Around 1.5 million people voted for him at the last elections. That in itself is a remarkable phenomenon.

I suppose a lot of people are attracted to his political program because of two things. The first item is the anti-Islam rhetoric. In Holland there are about one million people who are affiliated with that religion, mostly immigrant workers and their families who were brought here during the 1960s and 70s. The other 15 are (mostly) Christian all be it divided into Catholics and Protestants (and others). Once you contemplate the religious angle you'll realize that different religions don't mix well and that this has always been the case. Nowadays of course with terrorist attacks stemming from followers of Islam this division is inflated to massive proportions. This is one aspect. The fear of Islam is augmented by the fact that Muslim couples tend to have many children. I know for a fact that the most common name for newborn children in Amsterdam is Mohammed.
This is for some people an indication that Islam is on the rise in Holland since the indigenous Dutch don't have that many children anymore in our modern, expensive, fast-paced society. In the long haul it is feared that Muslims one day will surpass the Christians and will shape a nation according to their own religious ideology. For Christians this culminates in the potential loss of identity and culture. This is one aspect why Geert Wilders manages to gather so much support, from my perspective.

Secondly, and far more clever, Wilders drives the economic angle and connects the deficit to unwise, leftist spending which he calls "hobbies". Politicians from the left of the political spectrum tend to tax and spend more money on matters such as the environment, foreign aid, charitable causes, social security and so on. During these difficult economic times he claims that expenditures such as these are totally unfounded and even hints towards the notion that they are (partially) responsible for the current economic climate. The latter of course isn't exactly the truth since we all know that the financial system and the banks caused the crisis. Still, cutting back on (perceived senseless) government spending is something that sits well with many people and this factor also accounts for some of the support Geert Wilders is getting. Holland is a country with many forms of taxation and over the years many people from all walks of life got totally fed up with the system. I'm sure that goes for many other Western countries as well. A politician can score easy points by stating that he will tax the people less.

To be honest, I'm not totally insensitive to what Wilders is saying. Cutting down taxes is something that sits well with every person, myself included. Yet I'm experienced enough to know that this is half of the equation because what you don't pay in taxes that goes to government related programs, you'll eventually wind up paying the same amount (or more) in the corporate world because there is where it's going to be outsourced. I look at the political wings, left and right, as two wings of the same bird - the political/financial system. Left may tax more but right will lay the same bill in the corporate world. The left makes taxes mandatory while the right leaves you the choice but in the end you'll need those utilities and possibly wind up paying even more. Looking at it from a distance it resembles more of a financial game - for me - and it doesn't matter if you go right or left because you wind up paying anyway. From this perspective I find Wilders solutions to financial problems to be superficial. Many people have labeled him as a 'populist,' saying those things that attract voters but in reality don't offer any real solutions to long term problems.

The anti-Islam rhetoric is potentially far more dangerous and could have serious implications. I myself am a Roman Catholic although not a practicing one. I have no religious affiliation with Islam whatsoever, but I do understand and support the notion of freedom of religion. Having the freedom to practice leaves far more room for dialogue than imposing restrictions. When you start doing that people will automatically have a negative reaction.
I'm sure there are folks that will say that Muslim countries don't have freedom of religion and it's true to some extent, but while some countries have Islam as the sole religion and forbid the rest, other countries allow all religions. You can't lump everything together. Imposing restrictions here in Holland could result in similar measures being taken in moderate Muslim countries. The world often works with quid pro quo.

Like I mentioned before, I don't think Geert Wilders offers any real solutions. He's a politician in the truest sense of the word and will say those things which he knows will gather support. All politicians are bound to the financial system and climate, therefore automatically limited in what they can do for the people. There's never enough money to fix all the problems. Once you realize that you might also realize that there our no saviors in the political system. Wilders doesn't add any real value to the political process. Personally, I think he does the opposite.
How his trial will go is anyones guess. His lawyer managed to suspend the trial on the basis that the judge might be partial (based on some things he had said) and another judicial body is examining the matter. Wilders actually took the right to remain silent at the beginning of the trial. Quite remarkable since he's very vocal at practically every other venue. I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish with that. But he is a showman, make no mistake.

Greedy Grabbers 5

German bank Hypo Real Estate (HRE) allocated €25 million in bonuses to its executives even though in the year 2009 a negative balance of €2.2 billion was reached. HRE was in fact rescued with the help of the German government and €140 billion in taxpayer money. The board of directors however relied on some old company rules, and started handing out bonuses to itself.

Greedy Grabbers 4

Take a look at this mugshot. Well, it isn't really a mugshot but it could very well be. Meet director J. van Praet who got fired last February over a conflict with the company council. He headed an institution for the handicapped but got into conflict over an interest free loan, amounting up to €550.000. The board didn't like that. Just recently it became public knowledge (from the companies annual report) that the former director got off pretty well. He received a "golden handshake" worth 200K, a severance worth another 200K and another bonus worth 40K. I'm sure Mr. Praet is a happy man. Do you think he can explain why healthcare is getting more expensive each year?