The Zeitgeist Movement & The Venus Project

I find this to be extremely interesting and moving, in the way of our society, technology and economy.

With no doubt, there are extremely valid points backed by an abundance of evidence in all of these lengthy movies and lectures. All of these videos are loaded with great information.

Just thought I'd share with you guys.


Zeitgeist: Addendum - 2008
"focuses further on the monetary system and advocates a resource-based social system influenced by the ideas of Jacque Fresco ..."


ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011
"A feature length documentary work which presents a case for a needed transition out of the current socioeconomic monetary paradigm which governs the entire world society. This subject matter will transcend the issues of cultural relativism and traditional ideology and move to relate the core, empirical "life ground" attributes of human and social survival, extrapolating those immutable natural laws into a new sustainable social paradigm called a 'Resource-Based Economy'."

The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation
"The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation by Peter Joseph, 2009 This the Activist Orientation Presentation for The Zeitgeist Movement."

Peter Joseph: "Where are we going?" Nov. 15th '09 1/2
"Peter Joseph Lecture: "Where are we going?"
at Maharishi University, Nov. 15th 2009
Video 1/2 "

Peter Joseph: "Where are we going?" Nov. 15th '09 | 2/2
"Peter Joseph Lecture: "Where are we going?"
at Maharishi University, Nov. 15th 2009
Video 2/2 "

Project websites:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/

aaronhall555 wrote:

I find this to be extremely interesting and moving, in the way of our society, technology and economy.

With no doubt, there are extremely valid points backed by an abundance of evidence in all of these lengthy movies and lectures. All of these videos are loaded with great information.

Just thought I'd share with you guys.

Here's another link on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie

Jäger, have you watched the films, especially Addendum and Moving Forward?

aaronhall555 wrote:

Jäger, have you watched the films, especially Addendum and Moving Forward?

Well, not as much as Jared Loughner did; from what we understand, he was quit a fan. Which makes their commentary on violence a bit odd when you look at what one of their fans did. My attention span for work like that isn't long enough to sit through three hours.

My essential problem with this... movement, I guess, was first, the conspiracy theory nonsense, and second, the ignorance of the reality of how humans interact. Third, throw in claims that simply are not true. Visions of everyone joining together to sing Kumbaya, eliminate money, and share and share alike are nice, but they aren't supported by reality. Take all the spacey music out and wandering cinematography and very few people would watch for long.

And when you say that drugs - like crack for example - aren't actually addictive, it's that some people are addictive... well, you aren't playing with a full deck. It isn't going to happen of course, but if the enlightened narrator that said that at some point during the movie would care to use crack for a couple of weeks and then just drop it - just to prove drugs aren't actually addictive - that might be persuasive.

But I doubt he's stupid enough to do that.

Jäger wrote:

aaronhall555 wrote:

Jäger, have you watched the films, especially Addendum and Moving Forward?

Well, not as much as Jared Loughner did; from what we understand, he was quit a fan. Which makes their commentary on violence a bit odd when you look at what one of their fans did. My attention span for work like that isn't long enough to sit through three hours.

I watched all the films and a few lectures(All the way through, because I find them to be intellectually enlightening, and very educational on quite a few levels, which keeps my interest.), as well as more than half a million people all over the world. And I have no desire to hurt anyone, in fact, the opposite is true, only wish to help others.

It was very inappropriate for ABC, NBC and their affiliates to say that Zeitgeist had any influence on that extremely troubled individual.

I'm certain the only objective of The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project is to better humanity and raise everyones quality of life to the highest potential.

Jäger wrote:

Which makes their commentary on violence a bit odd

Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say, as I'm not being insulting. But if you actually understood the commentary on violence you would realize that there were more intuitive reasons as to why a sick individual like Jared Loughner did what he did.

Jäger wrote:

My essential problem with this... movement, I guess, was first, the conspiracy theory nonsense

I can agree with that, but there is still something not right regardless of what story you want to believe.

Jäger wrote:

My essential problem with this... and second, the ignorance of the reality of how humans interact.

I didn't find anything flawed about how this subject was presented. Very scientific and has sources with decades of research and testing. Feel free to elaborate on your point of view about this one, as I'm curious as to how your have different sources and research.

Jäger wrote:

Third, throw in claims that simply are not true. Visions of everyone joining together to sing Kumbaya, eliminate money, and share and share alike are nice, but they aren't supported by reality.

Not quite. Nothing about a "Resourced-Based Economy" can't be a reality. Some of the first primitive civilizations were resource based and not monetary based, but we have greater knowledge and great technology now. And no one is saying join together to sing Kumbaya.....

Jäger wrote:

Take all the spacey music out and wandering cinematography and very few people would watch for long.

It's just artistic flare for the film and breaks up the monotone of a educational documentary.

Jäger wrote:

And when you say that drugs - like crack for example - aren't actually addictive, it's that some people are addictive... well, you aren't playing with a full deck.

I have not done adequate research on this subject to draw a opinion. Other than my personal experiences, and I can name a few drugs that I've tried yet never became addicted to or dependent of. And I believe the argument is, are the drugs addictive or do certain people have addictive natures? IDK

aaronhall555 wrote:

It was very inappropriate for ABC, NBC and their affiliates to say that Zeitgeist had any influence on that extremely troubled individual.

I suppose they had to move on to something after all the original accusations about it being the result of the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin, and conservative talk radio was found to be absolutely false. Pity nobody found those accusations "inappropriate". To be fair to the media though, I don't recall any of them claiming that Zeitgeist and Loose Change caused him to do what he did - they just reported (correctly, as best we know) that he was obsessed with Zeitgeist and other socialist documentaries and books.

Quote :

I'm certain the only objective of The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project is to better humanity and raise everyones quality of life to the highest potential.

Oh, we can agree on that. Karl Marx claimed the same objectives. As does communism. As do religions, which the Zeitgeist/Venus projects and their adherents bear some semblance to (although, given their agnosticism, that probably pisses them off).

Jäger wrote:

Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say, as I'm not being insulting. But if you actually understood the commentary on violence you would realize that there were more intuitive reasons as to why a sick individual like Jared Loughner did what he did.

My original degree was in criminology. Now that was back in the 70's, so I'm probably fairly out of touch with a lot of current research. But I think between that and 12 years in law enforcement before moving on to the military, I have at least a smattering of understanding of crime and causation theories. I've also had to, personally, deal with both victims and perpetrators just about every working day over that 12 years. And I'm going to claim that kind of personal experience beats watching biased documentaries any day of the week.

If you want to segue into any particular school of criminology causation theory and relate it to Zeitgeist, please feel free to do so. You might want to start with the radical criminology school of thought - it's the one that fits closest with Zeitgeist's tenants (as best as can tell from what I watched before giving up on it), and it's not a bad fit.

Do I think Zeitgeist caused Loughner to do what he did? No, no more than it can be attributed to his drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or any other single factor. Will I accept a statement that Zeitgeist could not possibly have contributed to some degree in what he did? Absolutely not.

Quote :

Jäger wrote:

My essential problem with this... movement, I guess, was first, the conspiracy theory nonsense

I can agree with that, but there is still something not right regardless of what story you want to believe.

It is interesting to me that now that we are in "the information age", so many approach life with a sense that if every nuance of an event cannot be dissected afterwards and explained in every aspect, then there must be a conspiracy involved somewhere.

Let's take the "one world government" conspiracy theory Peter Joseph is selling. If you think about it for a moment, do you honestly believe that men like Vladimar Putin, Robert Mugabe, Tony Blair, any American president you care to name, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, etc fight and claw their way to the top, awaiting the day they can happily and willingly step aside and hand their power and position to some mysterious cabal of international bankers?

I find that REALLY hard to swallow. Incidentally, bonus points if you can name who first used the words "new world order".

Quote :

Jäger wrote:

My essential problem with this... and second, the ignorance of the reality of how humans interact.

I didn't find anything flawed about how this subject was presented. Very scientific and has sources with decades of research and testing. Feel free to elaborate on your point of view about this one, as I'm curious as to how your have different sources and research.

That would include the "research" that brings him to claim that drugs like crack are actually not addictive, it's just that some people are addiction prone.

Now it's my turn to assure you I'm not being insulting, but... how much life experience do you have Aaron? How long have you been an adult? How much time have you spent in the real world, outside the walls of academia (which, incidentally, I value)?

How many assaults, rapes, and attempted murders have you personally had some kind of contact with? How many countries have you gone to where you saw concentration camps, death camps, and unearthed mass graves - in real time, in person, not by watching a documentary? How many wars have you actually been IN, a participant on the two way rifle range? Have you ever bandaged little girls hands, where their thumbs and all their fingers were cut off with tin snips because they were caught wearing nail polish? Never mind seeing dead kids, do you know what they SMELL like? Did you know that you can actually FEEL hate when you're negotiating with some of the monsters that walk the earth?

My best guess is your response to that is "No, I haven't experienced any of the above". On the other hand, we have more than a few members on this forum who have done all of that, some of that, and some who have even seen a lot more than that. Now how do we convey that to somebody who has never experienced that kind of hate and evil first hand, yet who watches documentaries and believes that the science and testing has determined that kind of behaviour can be eliminated - never mind all the other ills of the world resulting from simple greed?

I applaud your desire for goodness to rule the world. Go hook up with an NGO; go spend some time in Chad, in Sierra Leone, in Afghanistan. Then we can sit down and discuss the reality of how humans interact. It isn't the highest common denominator that lays out our interactions; it is the lowest common denominator among us. And frankly, the lowest common denominator ain't buyin' what you're sellin'.

Quote :

Nothing about a "Resourced-Based Economy" can't be a reality. Some of the first primitive civilizations were resource based and not monetary based, but we have greater knowledge and great technology now.

Many things are theoretically possible. That doesn't make it reality. You touch on one reason in your comment. We have moved a long way from the days of bot and wergilt. I'm pretty sure you have a few years of sociology under your belt by now. Think back to the division of labour; the complexity of society as we grew and evolved pretty much put paid to Zeitgeist's view of resource based economy. Going back to a resource-barter based economy, pragmatically, simply isn't going to happen.

Quote :

Jäger wrote:

Take all the spacey music out and wandering cinematography and very few people would watch for long.

It's just artistic flare for the film and breaks up the monotone of a educational documentary.

We'll have to disagree on that. Without the spacey music and cinematography, it would be flat on it's face. Most educational documentaries don't need to resort to that.

Quote :

Jäger wrote:

And when you say that drugs - like crack for example - aren't actually addictive, it's that some people are addictive... well, you aren't playing with a full deck.

I have not done adequate research on this subject to draw a opinion. Other than my personal experiences, and I can name a few drugs that I've tried yet never became addicted to or dependent of. And I believe the argument is, are the drugs addictive or do certain people have addictive natures?

This documentary is supposedly "Very scientific and has sources with decades of research and testing", remember? So where's the sources for that research and testing to deal with that claim that drugs aren't addictive? I'm being somewhat absurd here, but shouldn't some of those selling the Zeitgeist/Venus project be happy to subject themselves to a couple of weeks of crack use and then simply stop to prove their point?

I really do admire people who do want to work to make the world a better place. They share more in common with cops and soldiers than they might like to contemplate. But a healthy dose of skepticism when watching one sided documentaries is never a bad thing.

How do you see the lectures of Zeitgeist with the philosophy of John Locke and Edmund Burke?

Jäger ......

Jäger wrote:

aaronhall555 wrote:

It was very inappropriate for ABC, NBC and their affiliates to say that Zeitgeist had any influence on that extremely troubled individual.

I suppose they had to move on to something after all the original accusations about it being the result of the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin, and conservative talk radio was found to be absolutely false. Pity nobody found those accusations "inappropriate". To be fair to the media though, I don't recall any of them claiming that Zeitgeist and Loose Change caused him to do what he did - they just reported (correctly, as best we know) that he was obsessed with Zeitgeist and other socialist documentaries and books.

Ok, sounds like a smear tactic....

Jäger wrote:

Quote :

I'm certain the only objective of The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project is to better humanity and raise everyones quality of life to the highest potential.

Oh, we can agree on that. Karl Marx claimed the same objectives. As does communism. As do religions, which the Zeitgeist/Venus projects and their adherents bear some semblance to (although, given their agnosticism, that probably pisses them off).

There are some similarities, but there are more importantly major differences than which Marx, communism, etc... Examples are absolutely NO monetary system, NO centralized group of government or enforcement, and with the technology and knowledge we have today used to survey all of earths resources and automate everything we can, production wise, to produce abundance of anything we desire, essentially freeing humanity from most labor to concentrate on things they love. There would be freedom of religion and philosophies, no one is saying that you wouldn't be able to do anything that you want, of course unless if you were causing harm to others and at that point the people around you would step in to stop you, not some police. Everything and every decision would be based on reliability and sustainability and the scientific method. Of course this doesn't sound realistic now, and isn't until people start to realize what's going on now in this world and the environment we live in today starts to change for the better.

Jäger wrote:

aaronhall555 wrote:

Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say, as I'm not being insulting. But if you actually understood the commentary on violence you would realize that there were more intuitive reasons as to why a sick individual like Jared Loughner did what he did.

My original degree was in criminology. Now that was back in the 70's, so I'm probably fairly out of touch with a lot of current research. But I think between that and 12 years in law enforcement before moving on to the military, I have at least a smattering of understanding of crime and causation theories. I've also had to, personally, deal with both victims and perpetrators just about every working day over that 12 years. And I'm going to claim that kind of personal experience beats watching biased documentaries any day of the week.

If you want to segue into any particular school of criminology causation theory and relate it to Zeitgeist, please feel free to do so. You might want to start with the radical criminology school of thought - it's the one that fits closest with Zeitgeist's tenants (as best as can tell from what I watched before giving up on it), and it's not a bad fit.

Do I think Zeitgeist caused Loughner to do what he did? No, no more than it can be attributed to his drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or any other single factor. Will I accept a statement that Zeitgeist could not possibly have contributed to some degree in what he did? Absolutely not.

No argument there, but then you should be able to give some sort of explanation or reasoning as to why the Zeitgeist films would cause any type of motive to do what he did, instead of just trying to smear the idea of the movement with.

Jäger wrote:

aaronhall555 wrote:

Jäger wrote:

My essential problem with this... movement, I guess, was first, the conspiracy theory nonsense

I can agree with that, but there is still something not right regardless of what story you want to believe.

It is interesting to me that now that we are in "the information age", so many approach life with a sense that if every nuance of an event cannot be dissected afterwards and explained in every aspect, then there must be a conspiracy involved somewhere.

Let's take the "one world government" conspiracy theory Peter Joseph is selling. If you think about it for a moment, do you honestly believe that men like Vladimar Putin, Robert Mugabe, Tony Blair, any American president you care to name, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, etc fight and claw their way to the top, awaiting the day they can happily and willingly step aside and hand their power and position to some mysterious cabal of international bankers?

I find that REALLY hard to swallow. Incidentally, bonus points if you can name who first used the words "new world order".

I don't believe in the conspiracy stories. Even deeper than that, you have to look at the root causes of anything that goes on. Our environment, conditioning and the monetary system can be linked to the majority of the causes.

The Zeitgeist Movement from what I can tell is absolutely NOT about "one world government" is it about the abolishment of it and all governments. Of course this is not something that would happen over night, but needs to be realized that it is possible if we better our environment, change our conditions to be loving and not hateful, and eliminate the monetary system that promotes scarcity and rewards corrupt behavior. Hence why communism does NOT fill the bill. The Zeitgeist Movement is proposing a "open source" type of system that every human can be a part of if they desire, decision would be made based on the scientific method and open source and voted on say a web interface, a direct democracy.

Jäger wrote:

aaronhall555 wrote:

Jäger wrote:

My essential problem with this... and second, the ignorance of the reality of how humans interact.

I didn't find anything flawed about how this subject was presented. Very scientific and has sources with decades of research and testing. Feel free to elaborate on your point of view about this one, as I'm curious as to how your have different sources and research.

That would include the "research" that brings him to claim that drugs like crack are actually not addictive, it's just that some people are addiction prone.

Now it's my turn to assure you I'm not being insulting, but... how much life experience do you have Aaron? How long have you been an adult? How much time have you spent in the real world, outside the walls of academia (which, incidentally, I value)?

How many assaults, rapes, and attempted murders have you personally had some kind of contact with? How many countries have you gone to where you saw concentration camps, death camps, and unearthed mass graves - in real time, in person, not by watching a documentary? How many wars have you actually been IN, a participant on the two way rifle range? Have you ever bandaged little girls hands, where their thumbs and all their fingers were cut off with tin snips because they were caught wearing nail polish? Never mind seeing dead kids, do you know what they SMELL like? Did you know that you can actually FEEL hate when you're negotiating with some of the monsters that walk the earth?

My best guess is your response to that is "No, I haven't experienced any of the above". On the other hand, we have more than a few members on this forum who have done all of that, some of that, and some who have even seen a lot more than that. Now how do we convey that to somebody who has never experienced that kind of hate and evil first hand, yet who watches documentaries and believes that the science and testing has determined that kind of behaviour can be eliminated - never mind all the other ills of the world resulting from simple greed?

Well... I'm only 25, and not arguing that I have a lot to learn, as we all do, even the older folks, but I began working right out of high school and have had a few encounters of people that have assaulted me and others, victims of rapes, and people that have attempted and committed murders, as well as lost friends in the military and heard many stories. I know the world has a lot of abnormal behavior in it and even at age 25 can see how the environment, conditioning and the monetary system can cause these abnormal behaviors in people. I think you are over looking the root causes as to why these people behave the way they do.

Jäger wrote:

I applaud your desire for goodness to rule the world. Go hook up with an NGO; go spend some time in Chad, in Sierra Leone, in Afghanistan. Then we can sit down and discuss the reality of how humans interact. It isn't the highest common denominator that lays out our interactions; it is the lowest common denominator among us. And frankly, the lowest common denominator ain't buyin' what you're sellin'.

Quote :

Nothing about a "Resourced-Based Economy" can't be a reality. Some of the first primitive civilizations were resource based and not monetary based, but we have greater knowledge and great technology now.

Many things are theoretically possible. That doesn't make it reality. You touch on one reason in your comment. We have moved a long way from the days of bot and wergilt. I'm pretty sure you have a few years of sociology under your belt by now. Think back to the division of labour; the complexity of society as we grew and evolved pretty much put paid to Zeitgeist's view of resource based economy. Going back to a resource-barter based economy, pragmatically, simply isn't going to happen.

All I'm saying, and is evident, is that our current system is not working to improve everyones lives, nor am I saying that we need to change right this second, just that we need to be aware of what's going on around us and where it's going to take us.

Jäger wrote:

Quote :

Jäger wrote:

Take all the spacey music out and wandering cinematography and very few people would watch for long.

It's just artistic flare for the film and breaks up the monotone of a educational documentary.

We'll have to disagree on that. Without the spacey music and cinematography, it would be flat on it's face. Most educational documentaries don't need to resort to that.

Most documentaries do have music and cinematography. It's just art, and there is great information presented in the films, I'd still watch them with out the music and cinematography.

Jäger wrote:

Quote :

Jäger wrote:

And when you say that drugs - like crack for example - aren't actually addictive, it's that some people are addictive... well, you aren't playing with a full deck.

I have not done adequate research on this subject to draw a opinion. Other than my personal experiences, and I can name a few drugs that I've tried yet never became addicted to or dependent of. And I believe the argument is, are the drugs addictive or do certain people have addictive natures?

This documentary is supposedly "Very scientific and has sources with decades of research and testing", remember? So where's the sources for that research and testing to deal with that claim that drugs aren't addictive? I'm being somewhat absurd here, but shouldn't some of those selling the Zeitgeist/Venus project be happy to subject themselves to a couple of weeks of crack use and then simply stop to prove their point?

I really do admire people who do want to work to make the world a better place. They share more in common with cops and soldiers than they might like to contemplate. But a healthy dose of skepticism when watching one sided documentaries is never a bad thing.

How do you see the lectures of Zeitgeist with the philosophy of John Locke and Edmund Burke?

I'll see if I can find some sources for the addiction claims.

To be honest I had to look John Locke and Edmund Burke up.

From my quick review of John Locke on the wiki, I really liked this excerpt, "Locke was the first to define the self through a continuity of consciousness. He postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa. Contrary to pre-existing Cartesian philosophy, he maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception.", and I can agree with this. Would need more time to learn more about Locke.

Need more time to study what Edmund Burke is about.

Thanks for the conversation about all of this, I really do appreciate it. I just wanted to construe the concept of the resource based economy and the causes of human behavior. I fully admit that I have a lot to learn.

aaronhall555 wrote:

Ok, sounds like a smear tactic....

What are you talking about? The claims that he committed these murders as a direct result of what Sarah Palin has said, talk radio, the Tea Party movement?

Or the news simply pointing out that he was obsessed with Zeitgeist and Loose Change? Should they have hidden that obsession?

I'm not aware of ANY news media or prominent politician or commentator suggesting Zeitgeist caused him to commit these crimes - can you name one? But there was no shortage of accusation from those same people that the crimes were caused by "the right" within minutes of the shooting.

So given that, who, exactly, got smeared?

Jäger wrote:

There are some similarities, but there are more importantly major differences than which Marx, communism, etc...

I think there's a lot more similarities than differences. But whatever.

Quote :

Examples are absolutely NO monetary system, NO centralized group of government or enforcement, and with the technology and knowledge we have today used to survey all of earths resources and automate everything we can, production wise, to produce abundance of anything we desire, essentially freeing humanity from most labor to concentrate on things they love. There would be freedom of religion and philosophies, no one is saying that you wouldn't be able to do anything that you want, of course unless if you were causing harm to others and at that point the people around you would step in to stop you, not some police.

So now we've moved from one conspiracy theory concerning 9/11 to embracing another conspiracy theory - one world government. Along with the vision that we won't have to work, because self maintaining robots will run around doing all of life's labour, while we lay about having sex, doing drugs, going for a walk in the sunshine, etc, with little or no need for human industry. Hmmmmm....

So, if you have what somebody else wants, and a bunch of other people with guns decide they are going to take it, you figure that people around you - preoccupied by their freedom to concentrate on the things they love - are going to stop doing that and risk their lives to TRY and stop them? Do you really think so?

We were in Yugoslavia in 1992-1993. Eight years earlier the country had held the Olympics. They had the highest literacy rate in Europe and the highest rate of completing a post secondary degree - bar none. By the time we got there, in the space of about eight months they had devolved from an orderly society back to the Middle Ages. We arrived to operating concentration camps, death camps, genocide, and rape being used as a tactic of war. Much of the fighting involved modern day pirates styling themselves as "freedom fighters", roving around to find defenseless villages to pillage and rape. Most of the worst offenders were among the best educated - Karadzic is a medical doctor who did advanced studies in both Denmark and the US.

And the reason they got away with it until we arrived was because all their literate, educated fellow citizens were unwilling to stand up, stand together, and oppose them. There fellow citizens didn't want to get involved, just stood aside and hoped nobody would mess with them if they stayed out of it. It took 18 years to put Yugoslavia back together again. And that is a very small country (now group of countries).

And yet, with examples like Yugoslavia - better educated at the time than North America is now - you think it is realistic to assume this sort of thing wouldn't happen if you removed the infrastructure and government? I sure don't.

More importantly, no government? Okay, who makes the rules - you and your friends, or me and my friends? We can't have it both ways.

I have lots of friends and we're all well trained with both weaponry, small unit tactics, and the government has ensured most of us have been on the two way rifle range. There's no government infrastructure, and no police to intervene. I say the rules are going to be what we say they'll be - what do you and your friends say? Wanna make an issue out of it? It gets better - there's another group over there that doesn't agree with either of us, and they think using IEDs to remove those who don't agree with them is the way to get "concensus".

How are you, realistically, going to deal with that?

How are you going to deal with Russia, with China, with Saudi Arabia, etc when they say "Screw you - if you want to trade with us, pay up"? What are you going to do when North Dakota, or Alberta says "You know what, screw this resource thing - this oil we're sitting on is the equivalent of a mountain of gold here. Forget this "share/environment" thing you're selling - we're going to set up our own little conventional country here and sell our oil to whoever offers the most gold for it, and you can keep your environmental mumbo jumbo". Are you planning on using force to try and make them see it your way?

Quote :

Everything and every decision would be based on reliability and sustainability and the scientific method. Of course this doesn't sound realistic now, and isn't until people start to realize what's going on now in this world and the environment we live in today starts to change for the better.

Well, you just put your finger on it - it doesn't sound realistic because it isn't realistic. Lots of people in the world right now think things are just fine rather than experimenting with the Zeitgeist theories. Their kids are going to think much the same, because they're going to do pretty good to. And at the other end of the scale, you have places like Somalia, where if you offer your hand they'll see it as a sign of weakness and take your arm off and probably your head with it.

This is, mostly, simply fantasy, and why I've said it is completely out of touch with the reality of human behavior - now, or at any time in the past. Ever listened to the album "War of the Worlds" what the Artilleryman says in the track "Brave New World"? Same stuff.

Quote :

No argument there, but then you should be able to give some sort of explanation or reasoning as to why the Zeitgeist films would cause any type of motive to do what he did, instead of just trying to smear the idea of the movement with.

You're the one pitching this. There is apparently no disagreement that he was obsessed with Zeitgeist and Loose Change, and constantly spoke of them and their theories with those he had contact with. Why do you KNOW that degree of obsession had nothing whatsoever to do with his behavior - are we just supposed to accept that? I'm not smearing "the Movement" - it does that well enough itself - I'm just point out realities and incongruities it doesn't address.

Quote :

I don't believe in the conspiracy stories. Even deeper than that, you have to look at the root causes of anything that goes on. Our environment, conditioning and the monetary system can be linked to the majority of the causes.

So when you eliminate money, gold, etc - greed will disappear because you've removed the majority of the causal factor? When the environment is all nice and green (assuming you could actually pull this off), there will be no more hatred, no more envy, no more desire for power, minorities within religions will no longer hate each other?

You really think that?

Remember when you said "Some of the first primitive civilizations were resource based and not monetary based..." Well, they didn't have money, the environment was nice and clean, no evil SUVs or recreational motorcycles prowling the planet, those tribes were concensus oriented (when it wasn't "toughest guy rules", so much for consensus), and they still had greed, deviance, and violence. If it didn't work then, why would it work now? Do you really think human nature has changed, even after places like Yugoslavia?

Quote :

The Zeitgeist Movement from what I can tell is absolutely NOT about "one world government" is it about the abolishment of it and all governments.

Yes, please do eliminate government. My friends and I always wanted to be the ones in charge, rather than putting up with that annoying "democracy/majority rule" stuff, where most people who just don't get how we could make the world better would never put us in office. Just give us a power vacuum, get rid of the obstructive government infrastructure and police, and we'll step right in and show you how it's done.

You'll get our view of how the world should run instead of the Zeitgeist version, of course, once there's no government and police to interfere.

Why would you think for one second that if you eliminate any form of government, somebody else won't step into the vacuum? You don't know who, but SOMEBODY will. You're operating on the theory that the rest of the world will be as well meaning and unselfish as the Zeitgeist movement represent themselves as.

Quote :

Of course this is not something that would happen over night, but needs to be realized that it is possible if we better our environment, change our conditions to be loving and not hateful, and eliminate the monetary system that promotes scarcity and rewards corrupt behavior.

I know it is fashionable these days to hate banks, corporations, and anybody else who is remotely successful (even while many make their living as a result of those businesses), but suggesting that free enterprise and the pursuit of wealth (in any form) is what causes corruption is simply ridiculous. We once had "resource based" barter systems back in history - there is no evidence whatsoever that violence didn't exist back then, greed, corruption, etc. Cain slew Abel, you may recall. Generation One.

Quote :

Hence why communism does NOT fill the bill. The Zeitgeist Movement is proposing a "open source" type of system that every human can be a part of if they desire, decision would be made based on the scientific method and open source and voted on say a web interface, a direct democracy.

So I own the only bridge that allows you and your friends to get your resources down to the market, and I say that you only get to use the bridge if you give me 75% of your production, what then? If I tell you that I have no use for the hemp shirts you make and want to trade me for use of the bridge, but I'll take gold or your youngest daughter for a week, what then? Do I have to share my wealth on your terms to allow you to benefit? That would be coercive - if you could actually pull it off. Is it justifiable for you to use coercion/force as a member of the Zeitgeist religion, justified by the necessity to do so for the common good?

And what if I say "screw you and whatever you vote to do"? Me and all my veteran friends aren't interested in what you vote for or against - we're going to have our own little version of government in whatever area we and our like friends decide is ours. What are you going to do about that?

BTW, who gets to control the root servers for the internet? Your communications lines run through territory I control - I see a nice little money making opportunity here - what you going to do about it?

Whose science do we go with - yours or mine? You have scientists that say we have iatrogenic global warming? I have thousands of scientists with equally good credentials who say it's rubbish. When we disagree and my group is much better armed and much more experienced at military tactics and using arms - whose science do you think we're going to go with?

Quote :

I know the world has a lot of abnormal behavior in it and even at age 25 can see how the environment, conditioning and the monetary system can cause these abnormal behaviors in people. I think you are over looking the root causes as to why these people behave the way they do.

Hmmmm... that "environment" thing again. When Cain slew Abel (and the first inter family war, the second and third murder, etc), how bad was the environment then? What money of the time led them down the path of violence and hate? And why could Laughner be influenced by all these things - and yet not by his obsession with Zeitgeist and it's tenants? How is that excluded?

Criminology is all about looking at causation in deviance. If you think I'm overlooking it, feel free to trot out your argument, something better than "I think you're overlooking it". As I said earlier, what you're claiming is not all that unlike the radical school of criminology. Are the things you mentioned causal factors in some crimes? Oh yes. But to suggest if you but can eliminate the three factors Zeitgeist and you keep hammering on will result in eliminating or nearly eliminating deviance and violence? Not hardly.

Quote :

All I'm saying, and is evident, is that our current system is not working to improve everyones lives, nor am I saying that we need to change right this second, just that we need to be aware of what's going on around us and where it's going to take us.

You're right, it's not. Our current nanny state confuses compassion and a hand up with a hand out. It doesn't do anything to improve the lives of people who grow up believing the government - meaning, their fellow citizens - owe them a living. it doesn't do anything to improve the lives of people who live their lives feeling they're entitled to have the government provide them with happiness, rather than the opportunity to pursue happiness to the best of their ability and to the degree of effort they are willing to put into it. And it certainly doesn't do their children any favours, who grow up in that environment and assume those same beliefs.

Instead, we just keep wrapping more and more government regulations, restrictions, legislation, employees around every facet of our lives, apparently on the theory if this hasn't worked so far, we simply haven't gone far enough. Or else, we advocate removing ALL government on the assumption that people will suddenly behave themselves and play nice with others. This, in a society when we can't even get consensus on whether motorcycles should be allowed on some particular area of public land or not.

Quote :

To be honest I had to look John Locke and Edmund Burke up.

From my quick review of John Locke on the wiki... Need more time to study what Edmund Burke is about.

That's a pretty sad indictment of the educational system you got stuck with growing up, that you got this far in your education and didn't know who they are. Don't they discuss the Framers, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, etc through high school anymore?

These two philosophers were prominent among those instrumental in the thinking of the Framers and the events of the day that gave us the Declaration of Independance, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights. Aside from the fact I asked you about Locke and Burke out of interest in how you see Zeitgeist as being constitutional - or whether you simply think we need to toss out the Constitution and Bill of Rights and start again - they explore the nature of man, why we live together for the common wealth, and the importance of the freedom to pursue wealth (however you define it), quite well. Locke in particular explores and lays this out quite well in "Two Treatises of Government". You might in particular want to read the rational for a monetary system to address the limitations on acquisition and wealth in a"resource based society" (you might grow a million of the world's best tomatoes in July, but what you can't trade within three weeks of them ripening I ain't accepting in trade in January).

BTW, when you get around to Burke, what he said centuries ago applies to some of what I have just pointed out above: “Very plausible schemes with very pleasing commencements have often shameful and lamentable consequences.”

Quote :

Thanks for the conversation about all of this, I really do appreciate it. I just wanted to construe the concept of the resource based economy and the causes of human behavior. I fully admit that I have a lot to learn.

Well, never be afraid to look at anything. But your exploration time in these areas might be better invested in some first year criminology, economic, and philosophy texts/courses. Not nearly as entertaining as Zeitgeist, but stuff that man has been concentrating on, debating, and refining for many centuries now.

If you want a quick and dirty look at an alternative view, easily read, hit Amazon and order a copy of "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin. I doubt you'll like him - he's a very conservative constitutionalist. But he is a lawyer who has had many successes shutting down government overreach, he is well versed in our constitution and it's philosophical underpinnings, and in that fairly short book you'll get a very different look at the issues you touch on. And... a little bit of insight into Locke, Burke, and the Framers as well.

Agree with him or not, that will give your inquisitive mind something to wrestle with...