Dialogues with the Venus Project (Zeitgeist Movement)

January 31, 2009

Many of you have probably seen the movie Zeitgeist.  For those who have not, simply put this term into your search engine and you can watch the movie on-line. 

 

Like many of you, the criticisms of fiat currency, fractional reserve lending and the state resonated with me.  While doing some research, I happened across the website for the Zeitgeist Movement and was intrigued.  So I went into the site and started reading.

 

Once I dug deeper, specifically in regards to something called the ‘Venus Project’, I was shocked at what I discovered.  I will leave it my readers to do their research on the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project.  What follows are excerpts from a debate I attempted with several of their members.  I thought these snapshots might elucidate the sad state of dialogue as it regards the problems so many perceive, and the human knee-jerk reaction to latch onto some great scheme, plan or vision for a ‘better’ society.  Also, it will illustrate the poor quality level of debate that’s out there.  It took much prodding to elicit any well-thought-out responses.  I encourage you to check these guys out.  They are absolutely frightening – a mass of otherwise well-intentioned people who sense something is wrong, but are blindly seeking answers.  Rather than understand their own history, they reach out to yet another form of statism and control: the centrally-planned collective.

 

Statement: A Free Society can be Designed

 

Barbed responds:

 

There is no design without control.

 

There is no control without force.

 

There is no societal force absent the state/tribe/collective.

 

There is no state/tribe/collective until the state/tribe/collective monopolizes force.

 

Once force is monopolized, the human being is subject to control by the whims of the state.

 

But, you say, WE have good ideas.  We love human beings. 

 

That may be so.  But will you live forever?  Once force is handed over to the state, it is handed over in perpetuity, the people already having been disarmed, controlled and pacified.

 

Will the next generation of Really Smart Leaders be as judicious with the use of that force as you will?

 

Ponder this, lest your movement morph into another branch of the statism you abhor.

 

Statement: This can only be done through proper design.

 

BWS Response:

 

Please explain:

1. How design does not imply control and therefore, inherently, force ?

2. What do you do with the human beings who do not fit your ‘design’?

For example- John Smith is an investment banker. He represents all that you claim to abhor.

You are ‘designing’ a society. John Smith and his value system does not fit into this design.

What do you do with John Smith?

 

(The answers to my questions seemed to imply that in the utopian ‘Venus Project’ society, there would be no money and therefore no investment bankers.  My question, therefore, was deemed moot.  There was little discussion of how the transition to this utopian society would be carried out, however, which is very concerning.  The whole line of reasoning reminds me of Mao, or Pol Pot, but in reverse: instead of a forced migration to the fields, it’s a suggestion of a highly technological society in an almost Gene Roddenberry sense.  In fact there are frequent Star Trek references to be found on their forum.  I suggested they read The Grapes of Wrath.)

 

Question: What do you think of the 2nd Amendment?

 

BWS Response:

 

We must not distract ourselves with ‘why’ someone may want to prevent you from owning the means of self-defense, in this case a gun.

We must ask how.

HOW do they propose ‘banning’, ‘restricting’, ‘regulating’, ‘confiscating’, and ‘policing’?

Will the state apparatus be used for these ends, as is so often the case? If not, what controlling body will, through its monopoly on the use of force, ‘ban’, ‘restrict’, ‘regulate’, ‘confiscate’ and ‘police’?

Once this authority, this power, has been handed over to such a body, what will said body do with this power next?

What if someone refuses to comply? What force will be used to compel this human beings action in the determined direction? Do you support the tazing of this human being? Do you support the beating of this human being? Do you support the killing of this human being? Do you support the imprisonment of this human being? If so, for how long?

We must ponder deeply our desires to direct human behavior and understand the dynamics of control utilized by both states and humans to control other humans.

Those who would ‘ban’ must first ponder these issues and draw them out to their logical conclusions.

 

 

Statement: You are so powerful when you have weapons , I believe people like you are sissies , without weapons or some brainwashed people doing the job for you , you are powerless , you are too sissies do fight like men.

 

BWS Responds:

 

How wrong you are.

 

The firearm was the ultimate achievement of mankind, freeing him from the totality of ‘might makes right’.  No longer could the state send someone bigger, someone stronger, men in greater numbers, or with more swords to put down those who would not submit to the power of the state.  The firearm made men equal.

 

However, since men are easily brainwashed by the state, man allowed the state to regulate and confiscate privately held firearms, thereby regaining for the state what is crucial to exert its control: a monopoly on the use of force.

 

Such is the plight of the people, that they so eagerly, through their desire to regulate that which they personally disfavor, grant the state ever increasing authority over their lives.

 

Statement: Although I support civilian ownership of guns, I believe it must be carefully regulated and all owners need a good understanding of firearms.  Again, I don’t want to start a gun control discussion. Just pointing out a few things.

 

BWS Responds:

 

If you don’t want to start a gun control discussion, allow us to substitute peanuts for guns.

 

Regulated by whom?

 

Once this individual or group of individuals ‘regulates’ peanuts, how are these regulations enforced?

 

Note that ‘force’ is explicit in the term ‘enforce’.  To whose authority are you willing to submit in order to enforce ‘regulations’ regarding peanuts?

 

How are you gonig to police these regulations?

 

What will you do if someone ‘violates’ these regulations?  Will you approve of tazing this person?  Beating this person?  Will you imprison this person?  For how long will you authorize the state to imprison this political prisoners who did not follow your ‘regulations’ ?

 

Statement: What might happen either is (sic) massive anarchy, mass looting, rape, murder and a lot more bad things.

 

BWS Responds:

 

I think there is a misunderstanding of the term ‘anarchy’ here. That is to be expected given the that the term has been manipulated and defined for the people, via the mainstream media, by the state. 

 

One may ask, in response to a criticism of the ‘design’ motive inherent in TVP: “What do you propose? Anarchy!?”

One does not ‘propose’ anarchy. Anarchy is not a proposition. Anarchy is not a destination. Anarchy is a journey.  Nor is philosophical anarchy a practical proposal. It is not a system. It is an anti-system. One is correct in suggesting that no historic example exists of functioning anarchy. But the suggestion is oxymoronic. There is no ‘functioning’ anarchy.

Rather than ‘propose’ anarchy, one whittles away at the state control mechanism- at regulation and the monopoly on force.

We could eliminate the overwhelming majority of regulation current in place in the modern, western state and be nowhere near philosophical anarchy. We would, however, be much closer to minarchy – and hence liberty.

“When the government fears the people, there is liberty…” -Thomas Jefferson

However, in order to approach liberty, we must resist in every way possible the state’s attempts at civilian disarmament (what you call ‘gun control’)

However, this does not appear to be the tone of this forum or this movement.

Therefore, TVP will simply replace the existing state paradigm, morphing into yet another tool of control, new state paradigm.

This is unfortunate.

To understand the problems you perceive in society, first understand the mechanisms of control and the reality of force. Force is neither good nor bad. However, it exists. To ignore this fact renders any suggestion for ‘change’ moot. Therefore, to achieve liberty one most ensure the state cannot monopolize force.

 

Statement: The need for regulation will vanish with proper education. The whole point behind regulating firearms is to ensure that the person in question actually knows how to safely operate one without harming others.

 

BWS Responds:

 

Who determines whether or not ‘the person in question actually knows how to safely operate one without harming others’?  Does the state determine this?  The vanguard?  Do you determine it?  Who is the decision-maker?  What if I disagree?  What force will you exert upon me to ensure my compliance?  What testing procedures will I have to go through in order to ensure that I ‘actually’ know how to safely operate a firearm?  Who will design the test?  Who will administer the test?  If I fail this test, will you deny me a firearm?  How will you deny me a firearm?  Will you unleash the force of the state upon me?  Will you imprison me?

 

These are questions proponents of TVP have not pondered with sufficient intellectual rigor.

 

Statement: Own firearms in a world where there is no practical reason to own them? I don’t see that anyone would do anything to them for disagreeing.  If they used those firearms to harm people then there would of course be a problem. One of the things the Venus Project talks about is using scientific method to arrive at CONCLUSIONS rather then OPINIONS.  We HAVE (pondered these issues), and I can assure Jaque has as well.

 

BWS Responds:

 

Then I invite ‘Jaque’ to come debate his vision on my site.  Or you, for that matter.

 

In reading your responses, and the responses of others, it is clear that TVP fits the classic definition of a cult.

 

You cannot debate your positions logically or apply intellectual rigor to your conclusions because you begin with the premise, rather than derive the premise through questioning and inquiry.

 

You begin with the premise of a world in which firearms are obsolete. 

 

Yet again, I resist the side-debate over whether this vision is desirable or not, but instead question your premise.

 

You cannot begin with a world where things that exist in reality are already ‘obsolete’.  This is ok in Star Trek.  It is not ok in reality.  In reality, you must have a plan to implement that which you suggest.

 

What you have in this community is a commonly accepted starting point that conveniently skips over the realities and challenges of implementation.

 

You use the euphemism ‘design’.  In reality, you imply force.  But you are able to gloss over the unpleasantness of this term by starting your thought process, and your debate, far down the road.

 

Jaque asks: If given a clean slate, how would you design a society?

 

Pol Pot also asked this question, and then implemented the blank slate upon which to ‘design’ his ideal.

 

TVP proponents skip over the difficult questions and begin with the blank slate.

 

Therefore is all serious inquiry glossed over by simply replying that “in a world where X is obsolete, we will not have this problem.”

 

Where will you find the police to render ‘obsolete’ that which does not fit into your ‘design’?

 

You will find them from the legions of cultists on this forum.

 

Statement (In answer to my challenge that the Venus Project does not address how this is to be done and how it will handle objectors): Yes it does actually. You handle people who object by eliminating any reason to object. Not by force or coercion, but by destroying whatever stands in the way of everyone being comfortable with the idea. By addressing the problems that create the objection at their root causes rather then creating laws and expecting people to go along with them. (emphasis mine)

BWS Responds:

“By destroying whatever stands in the way of everyone being comfortable with the idea”

Do you understand how frightening this is? Do you understand what you are saying?

Can you not see who else has uttered such words in the past, and what the result has been?

 

And there you have it.  The real agenda uncovered in a few short dialogues.

 

*****

 

A New Manifesto

 

I have just read through the Venus Project manifesto  and it seems to me the antithesis of what I (and many others) took away from the movie ‘Zeitgeist’.

 

Regardless of the author(s) intentions, the suggestions contained therein seem the most ambitious manifesto to date for complete central planning and human control I have ever read in my life.  The responses of those I encountered on their forum were cult-like.

 

Therefore I offer up the following:

 

1. To members of the Zeitgeist Movement and, specifically, supporters of the Venus Project: I offer up my blog to debate you.  I invite you to come forth and state your proposals of design for a ‘better’ society.  I will give you all the time and space you want to offer up your views.  But come prepared.  Email me and I will open up a post dedicated to the exchange of views

 

2. I offer up this counter-manifesto: Those of us who respect liberty and the individual, those of us who respect the fundamental human right to own property, to own the means of self-defense and to resist the tyranny of the majority (or of the individual) will resist you.  Those of us who respect our ties to the land, who respect the circularity of nature and the intrinsic human ties to the soil, we will resist you.  Those of who respect the hand-made and the local, the wood over the iron, the organic over the genetically engineered and the individual over the collective will resist you. We will resist you utilizing every means possible, at every corner and every step of the way.  We will never surrender.  And when your technological, ‘designed’ utopia begins to enslave its children, when your ‘benevolent’ leaders give way to your tyrants, we will be there to save you.

 

Advertisements

93 Responses to “Dialogues with the Venus Project (Zeitgeist Movement)”

  1. pervysage Says:

    Wow, I REALLY agree with you. I think the Budda had some interesting things to say on good intentions and bad consequences too. I’m interested in early Eastern anarchist/libertarian thought. Any background for us there BWS?

    -Pervy

    • VTV Says:

      Not only will I offer you debate here, I invite you to come to my radio show to discuss this topic. The archive of which will be publicly available.

      (347) 945-7747 show call in.

      VTV115 is my Skype.


      • I appreciate your allowing me to participate in the debate. However, I can only do so on-line via email or this blog. Not by telephone. And I do not have access to Skype at the moment for IM.

        A question for you as it regards what you see as my preoccupation with “force”. If proponents of TVP truly have no desire to use force today (and can guarantee the movement will never use force in the future) then why are you opposed to private ownership of firearms? Guarantee me a right to own the means of my self-defense and you are welcome to attempt to peacefully create any form of society you want, based on the individual’s choice to opt in or opt out of that society.

  2. joker2600 Says:

    I enjoy reading your views on the Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project. I stumbled upon your blog because the Zeitgeist forums were down. I occasionally take a look outside of the movement itself to reorient myself instead of mindlessly following group-think behavior.

    I offer up emergent design, or evolution, as a type of design that exists without force. We as individuals proceed in life doing what we perceive to be the best for our survival. Society as a whole is being constantly redesigned by the acts of the individual.

    I agree that right, or truth, is whatever is in the interest of the stronger party and that force applied to individuals is one way to control evolution. However, I believe that the sharing of ideas and the increase of total knowledge also has an affect on our evolution. For example, I recently watched Zeitgeist: Addendum, and now I am a member of the Zeitgeist Movement. No one forced me to join, but I did of my own free will.

    The Venus Project has designed a new future for the world as a whole. It is up to the individual to determine if that future is something they wish to attain. The Zeitgeist Movement itself is attempting to transition from our current society into that designed by Fresco.

    The way in which we transition is always debated by members. Some propose living off the grid in self-sustaining communities and becoming independent from the current monetary system. Others are focusing on developing opensource solutions to problems. And some like me, believe in utilizing the current system to help build the new one.

    I believe in an individual’s right to life–including food, clothing, and shelter–and the defense of that life. I don’t necessarily agree with ownership of property. I don’t see the need to consume or possess more than my fellow humans while our world suffers from pollution and waste. I don’t really care for the “us vs. them” mentality because in reality we are all part of the same global organism. I just hope we can evolve before it’s too late.

  3. bob Says:

    I too believe that the venus project has some merit. Your questions are valid and should be answered in time as all questions dealing with change in human bahavior. If suddenly all power were transfered to the very rich and they proclaimed to direct our lives in every way, what would be the effect? Riots, murder, rape? Society has a way of reacting to fast change in the negative. All good change will take decades. But it should be incouraged and refined. And then refined again. We are not perfect and well never be perfect. But we can seek to thrieve for a more perfect union. We should and must seek a more perfect existence with each other and our fellow humnan beings on this planet. If that means changing the way we exchange labor or service or products so be it. If it means we change the way we look at the resource of planet so be it. If it means we change the way inter-act with each other so be it. If it means changing the way and what we teach in our schools from profit of the pocket to profit of the mind and heart so be it. It start with an idea and grows from there. None of this will be in my life time or in yours. But it should be our responsibility as human beings to try.


  4. Guys- what are you saying? What does this even mean? Cultist drivel.

    Property is always, by definition, owned. It will either be owned by the individual, or the state / collective / tribe / cult.

    And Bob- I cannot make sense of your reply.

    The reason the Zeitgeist movement is a cult is because it is all destination, no journey. When only the destination is defined, the journey is easily twisted and contorted. All ends, no means easily becomes “the ends justify the means.”

    This was true of the Khmer Rouge, it was true of the Cultural Revolution, it was true of Lenin’s vanguard, it was true of Hitler’s brownshirts. And it would be true of the Zeitgeist movement had it any type of serious following or momentum. As such, it does not. And we are all better off because of it.

  5. Mattheww Says:

    BWS, you do the Venus Project’s followers a service by so rigorously questioning the organizations tenets; I hope you also see that both their positions and your responses are entirely beside the point.

    The Venus Project proposes all-new cities be built from the ground up in the model of the experimental one planned for “Venus, Florida,” about which the org’s website tells us….

    “Fund-raising efforts are currently under way to help support the construction of this first experimental city.”

    And there you have the entire soup-to-nuts reason for the Venus Project’s being. Not to build the city, of course (which would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, never mind getting the thing zoned) but to raise funds for it.

    Factnet says the way to know a dangerous cult is it has two aims only: Recruit more members and raise money. The Venus Project? Check and check.

    I can’t resist adding, though, that Mr. Fresco shrouding his true aim with all that mumbo-jumbo about ABOLISHING money is misdirection so canny I almost have to concede his followers’ point that he is some kind of genius.


    • Personally I cant wait to see the Project Venus experimental city aka 21st century Jonestown start-up. I think about every 20 or 30 years we need some cultist utopians to build something up and then kill themselves off so the rest of the sheep wake up just a little so as not to go off the deep end en masse. Its technocratic fabianism whichever way the want to fluff it up and NWO agitprop at best. So go ahead join your cult Im sure I’ll see the Project Venus types on the news at 11….

  6. Jen Says:

    “destroying whatever stands in the way of everyone being comfortable with the idea. ”

    Can you back up where you found this concept in actual Venus Project literature? That forum is open to anybody and everyone who gets a login, including non-supporters and is not an accurate measure to gauge the actual Movement. Please back up your statements by citing the movement manual directly. Citing the Zeitgeist forum posts as defining the ideals of the movement is like me citing a response post to you blog as representing your personal views.

    TVP is very much a peace movement in opposition of brute force in any way. No more a cult than any other collective that shares ideas/ beliefs.

    Jacque Fresco repeatedly says TVP is not a Utopia, that there is no such thing as a Utopia. That language comes from outside the movement. See page 3 of the Zeitgeist Orientation manual, paragraph 2.

    I understand your desire to defend property ownership. I’m a libertarian supporter within our current system. But, once you understand that the fundamental NEED to own property comes from living in a monetary system where scarcity is a key component and that the right to own property addresses a real fear of losing value in the current system, you can open your mind to the Venus Project concept. You fear losing property because it represents your value in society. This is a valid fear. In our current system, human rights are tied to having a monetary value for survival: basic needs and beyond and many TVP supporters are also libertarians or former libertarians. BUT in a system designed for abundance, this is a non issue. The Venus Project is not about taking anything from anybody. It is about providing what is available in abundance to everybody. From a supply/demand perspective, this means nothing will have ‘value’ such as defined in a capitalist model. It is a very difficult concept to grasp because no system of its kind has ever been tried and this is only made possible because of what we have available to us technologically. TVP is all about human rights like never before seen on our planet, you just have to understand the connection to behaviorism and environment and that there will be no need for government in this system. The Future By Design dvd goes into detail about how that is possible and it involves a system open to all humans to input for ideas: very sci-fi sounding, I know, but an amazing concept.

    I encourage you to evaluate the Movement from the most direct sources: The films, the Orientation guide, Jacque Fresco’s book The Best That Money Can’t Buy, the bi-weekly radio address by Peter Joseph – all these can be found on the ZM website or on the Venus Project website. Understand that most people in the forums are still working out the concepts for themselves and aren’t all in a position to speak on behalf of the movement as a whole.

    – jen

  7. Ben Moreno Says:

    I have to agree with Jen that you should not take the queue from the open but rather what you actually find within the movement.

    Also, in spite of all the detailed discussion about why this new idea will work or why it won’t.

    If suddenly all of the worlds resources became available for all people and there was abundance, I seriously doubt you would see mass murder, riots, rape, etc.

    People would probably very quickly realize just how bad things actually were. I think Jacque is onto something here. It’s too bad he is already so old.

  8. Ben Moreno Says:

    Wow, I left two words out of the first sentence. I meant to say, “You should not take your queue (sp: cue) from the open forum.”

  9. Stu Says:

    This is not about a movement, or a cult, or a political system. It’s about technology and the human race entering a new age, whether we like it or not.

    Efficiency, Automation, and Free Energy are our keys to freedom. We can’t continue like this any longer. It’s time to get rid of money and work towards a Resource Based Economy.


  10. For those who feel so strongly about technology and “advancing” civilization forward, absent administration of such technology or the use of force by the state/tribe/collective, I would suggest reading or re-reading:

    1. Steinbeck: The Grapes of Wrath – particularly the side-narrative regarding the tractor that is disbursed throughout the main narrative.

    2. John Seymour – The Self-Sufficient Life

    • Jen Says:

      1) Technology does not advance a civilization where survival is derived from money and money from work. developing technology in a monetary system is a conflict of interest. This is called “technological unemployment” and is addressed by the Zeitgeist Movement. In a monetary system, technology oppressed the working man because it puts the working man out of work. This is NOT AN ISSUE in a Venus Project society as there is NO MONEY. The very design of the society would be to eradicate this problem, so we can stop resenting technology and benefit from it.

      2) Again… this Zeitgeist Movement is ANTI-BRUTE FORCE. This is something you are projecting onto the movement, probably because you associate this with political Communism and political Communism with brute force. That is YOUR misinterpretation. If you think that the movement is about brute force because you read that in a forum post then you are reading a post of an uninformed person who doesn’t understand the movement- which is possible as it is an open forum. Please reference actual citations to support these claims, which are pretty offensive to supporters of a movement based on designing a society in order to improve the quality of living of every human on earth. You couldn’t be more off the mark with your assessment.

      So, while you suggested some good literature for reading, it is actually you who needs to do additional reading – on the very subject matter you are critiquing.

    • machupichu Says:

      You’re sighting a fictional novel to try to prove a point? I think you just killed your own credibility.

  11. Ben Moreno Says:

    Another thing regarding the use of the word “cult”. If you read all of the direct sources of the movement.

    thezeitgeistmovement dot com
    thevenusproject dot com

    I have read pretty much every piece of text on both sights besides the forum of course and there is nothing there about gathering to collect money. The movement’s purpose is to simply increase awareness of these ideas.

    Also regarding money, everyone person living within a monetary system is forced to participate to survive. There is of course going to be the use of money going in order to get started.

    Anyone with any intelligence at all can see why that is. So before you jump the gun and start attacking something you really don’t understand you should look into all angles first, instead going to an open forum when anyone can participate.

  12. Jen Says:

    “How design does not imply control and therefore, inherently, force ?”

    By addressing the root of problems that require control – by design of available resources – by education – with willing participants who see that it is beneficial. This has not been been attempted in history.

    So, your real argument lies in the nature versus nurture debate. If you believe that humans are competitive by biological nature and not by conditioning, this is where we get into the real discussion of the movement, more legit critiques. I fall on the side of competition as being nurtured by our environment, conditioned, but not everyone agrees. That is a more interesting discussion that the issue you raise.


  13. Jen, while I can respect your articulate defense of the Venus Project, the issue here is ownership, not money.

    Until you can explain how private ownership will work and be guaranteed in a society with no monetary exchange, your defense of the Project will largely fall on deaf ears and ultimately have little traction.

    If, on the other hand, your position is that, like money, there will be no ownership, well… that has been tried before in many forms. Each has failed spectacularly and with great expense in production and distribution, not to mention human life.

    The problem in our economy, and in the economies of most states throughout history, is one of fiat money: too little, rather than to much private ownership; and too much, rather than too little, intervention.

    The original Zeitgeist file seemed to focus in on that fact. The follow-up seemed to lose focus. The Venus Project, perhaps yourself excluded, seems to attract the same groups of people that are otherwise impressed with various collectivist, money-eliminating, technocratic models.

    • allcapacity Says:

      Why do people work (early concept)?

      One might say that people work for various reasons, well when we look at the history of work, one will see that the primary reason for work originated from the need for subsistence; the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life. For example early humans would hunter animals and gather fruits and vegetation (natural resources) for such subsistence. They would also inhabit caves and build shelter and make their clothing, all of which were something they POSSESSED (they DID NOT OWN THEM, as the concept had not been derived yet), and would defend all of their possession from any one or thing that may want to take that which they valued or possessed.

      Humans would defend their possessions aggressively if need be, because the methods (technology, e.g. spears and catapults) used to acquire those possessions were primitive and required extensive amounts of work or energy and time, and to be robbed of their possession would be equivalent to killing them.
      Though humans were mainly nomads deaths from confrontation with other humans was rare, as humans were not so populous at that time.

      With passing of time humans became more efficient and effective in their methods of hunting and gathering that it propelled humans to CHANGE their methods for subsistence, and humans soon discovered Agriculture.
      Population grew with the efficiency and effectiveness and human confrontations became more frequent, because segregated (by demographics) groups of humans were all searching for the land that had plentiful resources and would provide the best chances of survival.

      Why do we own anything (early simplistic concept)?

      As an attempt to curb the confrontations humans devised what is currently known as OWNERSHIP; “Ultimate and exclusive right (conferred by a lawful claim or title, and subject to certain restrictions) to enjoy, occupy, possess, rent, sell (fully or partially), use, give away, or even destroy an item of property. Ownership may be ‘corporeal’ (title to a tangible object such as a house) or ‘incorporeal’ (title to an intangible something, such as a copyright, or a right to recover debt). Possession (as in tenancy) does not necessarily mean ownership because it does not automatically transfer title.”

      POSSESSION: the act of having or taking into control.

      Definitions from: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ownership.html

      By analyzing this brief history one may be tempted to assume that ownership therefore eliminated as much confrontations as possible. However, the real reason behind the confrontations was an increase in overall human population (which had limited education and technology, e.g. humans weren’t educated about the effects of radical increase in human population on resources and how that led to confrontations, humans limited and misused technology that could provide help and abundance, e.g. Hydroponics has been limited and Top soil has been damaged), which caused the exhaustion or scarcity of resources.

      What the TVP proposes: “All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource”
      http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

      Now here I believe that TVP is referring to resources such as food, shelter, land, minerals, equipment of any sort, etc. And I see why it’s a difficult to grasp the concept because it doesn’t elaborate on certain relevant issues. What if any one whoever, wants to come and reside in the property you possess without your permission? I will answer that later.

      The way I may try to explain it to you:
      If you’re renting an apartment, that particular apartment is in your possession, but it’s in the ownership of the landlord.
      In a Resource Based Economy since it’s not monetary based property will be in your possession, but in the ownership of Planet Earth, which is your Landlord. Therefore neither you nor others will make any monthly payments to live anywhere, but that particular space your apartment occupies is set aside as your particular possession, no one person sets this, the integrated computer system will tell you at the time of ordering, that a particular location you desire is occupied or not, and if it’s not occupied you’ll order an apartment in accordance with your tastes, though the system will make recommendations if the order is defying laws of physics or is unsustainable. If it is occupied it will suggest to you other alternative locations based on your particular desired description.
      The concept of ownership as we know it today will change to a momentary(it could be a short or long period of time) possession of an earthly good. That means when you want to move to a different area of the world your possessed apartment will be recycled and someone else may take that location. You on the other hand will place another order in the area you’re now moving to.
      Nothing prevents you or others from doing anything that will affect the earth, others and the system in general negatively, all we’ll have as human beings will be EDUCATION as a tool to communicate to other human beings facts by scientific method and to restore anything that’s affected negatively, NOT via forceful means.(This does not mean that if someone for example came to confiscate your possessions for whatever reason, that people will not intervene.)
      Now back to the question, What if any one whoever, wants to come and reside in the property you possess without your permission?
      TVP works in such a way that resources are made abundant, this means if someone needs a place to stay, they can simply order a place to stay. There will be a use of EDUCATION as a vehicle to change the behaviour of individuals if that individual feels different, not force or coercion.
      When people are educated about particular things they have a tendency to act differently, only that some will learn things at slower rate than others and some faster than others. Eventually they get the message. And tolerance will be encouraged, as a means through which humans can coexist.
      Having said this you can see that it will only be the process of transition that will be the most difficult to implement because TVP is for education and not force or violence.

      “We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world’s population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.
      Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.”
      http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

      I am a supporter of the TVP, as I see a better, but not perfect, tomorrow. I see the potential in TVP and forums such as yours help address the issues people are having with TVP, and only by addressing those issues head on, will there some sort of clarification for both the TVP and the public in general.
      The systems that are at work today have failed miserably to address issues that affect all human beings.
      There are variations of Capitalism that have been put forward, but it looks in the long run wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, who’ll in turn be so powerful that they will follow their own agendas.
      If you have read a proposed system that sounds plausible to you, please give me some reference so I may do my research and analyze it.

    • allcapacity Says:

      Systems that failed

      Systems such as Communism, Socialism, Capitalism and Fascism are all failing (one has failed out-right) because they have one thing in common. That is they are all based on the Monetary Economics.

      “A Monetary System uses an intermediary exchange medium, known as ‘money’, as the means for facilitating employment, production, distribution, and the consumption of goods and services. The use of this medium of monetary exchange, as a basis for an economic system, could be termed: “Monetary Economics””
      http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf

      Capitalism is the prevailing system around the world, but many express dissatisfaction with this system because a common theme emerges in every society that has adopted it. That is Capitalism has the propensity to shift power to the already established. This is seen as normal when one considers that those established may have worked hard and intelligently and should be able to prosper from that labour. But I wish capitalism was that generous, and all who worked hard and intelligently were rewarded. The fact stands that those in power in a capitalist society will likely remain in power by the mere fact that they have all that money can buy and all that power can coerce. All that money can buy in this instance means: they can corrupt individuals, sponsor campaigns, coerce governments and businesses, etc. I wish it were not so and most people were benevolent in the monetary system. They do all this in the quest of more money, power and maintenance of power or control. They can do all this because people in societies of the monetary system are subject to the use of money to purchase that which they need, that means the less money you have the less you can purchase, and the more money you have the more you can purchase. Whether fiat money is abolished and Gold standard is introduced or not, the facts above mentioned (accumulation of wealth and power to a few, unjust compensation for efforts and intelligence, stratification of classes, propensity for bribes and coercion) will still remain under any type of monetary system. Therefore money is one of many tools to control any individual, business or government, because everyone in them needs money to at least get their most basic needs, therefore anyone of them is a potential victim of corruption, coercion, etc.
      Now ponder on this:
      Could one be bribed if she/he had no use for money at all?
      Would corporate crime exist if no one had need for money or benefit from it?
      Would a thief steal if I gave him whatever he NEEDED?

      When we deeply analyze why individuals commit many crimes (not dealing individuals with particular degenerative diseases), we observe that it was initially in the need to satisfy their basic needs (have food when needed, shelter when needed, transportation, etc) and because money is always spent on needs and wants, the more you have of it the more you can assure those needs and wants, therefore this creates an incentive to keep committing crimes, to keep wanting power etc…

      Money is not evil and was never evil! It is merely an out dated solution to the problems we once had.

      Since capitalism advocates individualism, why is it that it doesn’t make sure the every individual section of its chain is equally strong?
      If we say that other systems were theoretically sound, but practically flawed, capitalism befits this definition, the only difference being that capitalism appears less inhumane and gives individuals more of a chance, and where as other systems are inhumane and give individuals less of a chance. Nonetheless all systems have failed us as human beings.

      I think it’s time for something radically different, something that doesn’t propagate the old crippled and outdated ways.

    • allcapacity Says:

      Why do people work (early concept)?

      One might say that people work for various reasons, well when we look at the history of work, one will see that the primary reason for work originated from the need for subsistence; the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life. For example early humans would hunter animals and gather fruits and vegetation (natural resources) for such subsistence. They would also inhabit caves and build shelter and make their clothing, all of which were something they POSSESSED (they DID NOT OWN THEM, as the concept had not been derived yet), and would defend all of their possession from any one or thing that may want to take that which they valued or possessed.

      Humans would defend their possessions aggressively if need be, because the methods (technology, e.g. spears and catapults) used to acquire those possessions were primitive and required extensive amounts of work or energy and time, and to be robbed of their possession would be equivalent to killing them.
      Though humans were mainly nomads deaths from confrontation with other humans was rare, as humans were not so populous at that time.

      With passing of time humans became more efficient and effective in their methods of hunting and gathering that it propelled humans to CHANGE their methods for subsistence, and humans soon discovered Agriculture.
      Population grew with the efficiency and effectiveness and human confrontations became more frequent, because segregated (by demographics) groups of humans were all searching for the land that had plentiful resources and would provide the best chances of survival.

      Why do we own anything (early simplistic concept)?

      As an attempt to curb the confrontations humans devised what is currently known as OWNERSHIP; “Ultimate and exclusive right (conferred by a lawful claim or title, and subject to certain restrictions) to enjoy, occupy, possess, rent, sell (fully or partially), use, give away, or even destroy an item of property. Ownership may be ‘corporeal’ (title to a tangible object such as a house) or ‘incorporeal’ (title to an intangible something, such as a copyright, or a right to recover debt). Possession (as in tenancy) does not necessarily mean ownership because it does not automatically transfer title.”

      POSSESSION: the act of having or taking into control.

      Definitions from: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ownership.html

      By analyzing this brief history one may be tempted to assume that ownership therefore eliminated as much confrontations as possible. However, the real reason behind the confrontations was an increase in overall human population (which had limited education and technology, e.g. humans weren’t educated about the effects of radical increase in human population on resources and how that led to confrontations, humans limited and misused technology that could provide help and abundance, e.g. Hydroponics has been limited and Top soil has been damaged), which caused the exhaustion or scarcity of resources.

      What the TVP proposes: “All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource”
      http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

      Now here I believe that TVP is referring to resources such as food, shelter, land, minerals, equipment of any sort, etc. And I see why it’s a difficult to grasp the concept because it doesn’t elaborate on certain relevant issues. What if any one whoever, wants to come and reside in the property you possess without your permission? I will answer that later.

      The way I may try to explain it to you:
      If you’re renting an apartment, that particular apartment is in your possession, but it’s in the ownership of the landlord.
      In a Resource Based Economy since it’s not monetary based property will be in your possession, but in the ownership of Planet Earth, which is your Landlord. Therefore neither you nor others will make any monthly payments to live anywhere, but that particular space your apartment occupies is set aside as your particular possession, no one person sets this, the integrated computer system will tell you at the time of ordering, that a particular location you desire is occupied or not, and if it’s not occupied you’ll order an apartment in accordance with your tastes, though the system will make recommendations if the order is defying laws of physics or is unsustainable. If it is occupied it will suggest to you other alternative locations based on your particular desired description.
      The concept of ownership as we know it today will change to a momentary(it could be a short or long period of time) possession of an earthly good. That means when you want to move to a different area of the world your possessed apartment will be recycled and someone else may take that location. You on the other hand will place another order in the area you’re now moving to.
      Nothing prevents you or others from doing anything that will affect the earth, others and the system in general negatively, all we’ll have as human beings will be EDUCATION as a tool to communicate to other human beings facts by scientific method and to restore anything that’s affected negatively, NOT via forceful means.(This does not mean that if someone for example came to confiscate your possessions for whatever reason, that people will not intervene.)
      Now back to the question, What if any one whoever, wants to come and reside in the property you possess without your permission?
      TVP works in such a way that resources are made abundant, this means if someone needs a place to stay, they can simply order a place to stay. There will be a use of EDUCATION as a vehicle to change the behaviour of individuals if that individual feels different, not force or coercion.
      When people are educated about particular things they have a tendency to act differently, only that some will learn things at slower rate than others and some faster than others. Eventually they get the message. And tolerance will be encouraged, as a means through which humans can coexist.
      Having said this you can see that it will only be the process of transition that will be the most difficult to implement because TVP is for education and not force or violence.

      “We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world’s population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.
      Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.”
      http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

      I am a supporter of the TVP, as I see a better, but not perfect, tomorrow. I see the potential in TVP and forums such as yours help address the issues people are having with TVP, and only by addressing those issues head on, will there some sort of clarification for both the TVP and the public in general.
      The systems that are at work today have failed miserably to address issues that affect all human beings.
      There are variations of Capitalism that have been put forward, but it looks in the long run wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, who’ll in turn be so powerful that they will follow their own agendas.
      If you have read a proposed system that sounds plausible to you, please give me some reference so I may do my research and analyze it.

  14. Jen Says:

    Ah, then I will answer your question with a question.

    What need does ownership serve?

    We have never in history been able to meet all people’s needs before due to lack of technology. So, my friend, it couldn’t possibly have been tried before in the way we are discussing it and on a global scale.

    The Venus Project is voluntary participation – so nobody would be taking ownership of anything claimed for ownership, such as your home, car, etc. But in a Venus Project society you would be considered old fashioned- clinging to a security out of a fear that is no longer relevant – of your own choice. AND the VP society would still provide you free health care to you and your family if you want it, no matter what your beliefs on it are – nothing forced – just available.

  15. Ben Moreno Says:

    I keep seeing many of the same questions going around the internet about the movement. This clearly shows that people are not actually reading all of the information.

    It happens all the time, you will be reading part of something and then all the sudden you will get a great idea in your head that is against what someone is saying and then you will just post a comment without actually reading the complete item.

    Almost every question I could think of that naturally comes up when learning about the Zeitgeist movement is answered in the FAQ on the site.

  16. Rootnode Says:

    Not a Project Venus member. Have not come here via your invitation to debate members. Just doing some research on Zeitgeist and Project Venus for my own personal gain.

    I don’t think you should have dismissed the statement (from the following excerpt I took from your quote) quite so easily. I think this was a sample from a broader discussion that lead to gun ownership and control in the context of Project Venus but I would not file it under “sad state of dialogue” as you put it.

    Anyway its this:

    “Statement: The need for regulation will vanish with proper education. The whole point behind regulating firearms is to ensure that the person in question actually knows how to safely operate one without harming others.

    BWS Responds:

    Who determines whether or not ‘the person in question actually knows how to safely operate one without harming others’? Does the state determine this? The vanguard? Do you determine it? Who is the decision-maker? What if I disagree? What force will you exert upon me to ensure my compliance? What testing procedures will I have to go through in order to ensure that I ‘actually’ know how to safely operate a firearm? Who will design the test? Who will administer the test? If I fail this test, will you deny me a firearm? How will you deny me a firearm? Will you unleash the force of the state upon me? Will you imprison me?”

    I think you’re very valid in pointing out the lack of information about the transition period between “Monetary-ism”, as it were, and this new social structure, “by design” proposed.

    However, the above quoted statement is, in fact, very solid material for a debate had you considered the angle its aiming at. Your replies to that statement are not really adequately challenging the notion put forward. The poster is saying that the educational processes that people will undergo will be the determining factor in the new social structure. You’re not really replying with anything solid. Your first question “Who determines whether or not ‘the person in question actually knows how to safely operate one without harming others’?” should be a clue that you haven’t digested the notion. Its not about hierarchy of decision makers. Its about equipping people – each and every person – with the mental capabilities as well as conditioning them not to require weapons to resolve their problems because, in the context of the society proposed, their problems will be to challenge themselves to achieve for the sake of achieving not in order to compete to survive. Survival will be ensured by virtue of default and simply being born into a society where everyone cares and tends to everyone else. Which is kind of their whole point, I guess…

    If it sounds naive on the one or Orwellian on the other end of the spectrum, you should address it in that capacity, not dismiss it with snooty remarks.

    I think on the whole you are right to challenge them, though. Certainly their notion that all people can be conditioned to accept the notion of a non-threatening existence through the sheer act of being born into a society that promotes that – in short the whole human nature vs human behavior argument – leaves a lot of gaps.

    I was bullied as a child by kid that came from good home, with honest, hard -working parents who had good income. He was physically handicapped (walked funny like his knees were tied together cause of some infant disease he had) so that probably attributed to his mental state where he took pleasure in making others suffer but the question remains: how do you deal with people like that who would simply refuse to play along in this social organization?

    I have seen human nature of primate homo sapient sapient. Some of them like to inflict pain and suffering on other by. Their. Nature. Weather you accept that or not. I have intersected with samples of people like that. There was a bully in my kid’s nursery school. He would push others around. Take their toys just to watch them cry. Punch and scratch them without being provoked.

    Human nature, at least in some instances, is violent and unforgiving.

    And if it isn’t, if its just that I’ve been conditioned to believe this is so, then that in itself presents a problem because I would love to reject the monetary system, embrace a society in which we all work for one another and not for money but I, as a prospective member of this society am not convinced and need to have certain assurances which I’m being asked to simply accept as axioms, on faith.

    That cannot be because it negates the idea itself as I represent a sample of at least one human that won’t join unless pre-conditions are met. And I was keen to start with you’ll remember. What about the guys who are rolling around in cash on yachts, surrounded by beautiful models and an army of mercenaries on payroll? You think they might have a thing or two to say about my non-violent boycott of their lavish lifestyle?

    I think Venus Project people seriously underestimate the effort it would take to convince everyone of their ideas which are only viable in that pristine environment where everybody, without exception, plays along. I think, ultimately, it is achievable through a gradual change but I have me doubts weather or not that change would not entail a violent outburst of some kind.


  17. Ben and Jen: I am sorry but I do not have time to engage in sophmoric debates. Feel free to post up any thoughts you want, I would never restrict your 1A rights. I urge you to contemplate this quote:

    “Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other.”

    Thank you.

    • machupichu Says:

      You said that you invite anyone to debate these points with you and then you shrug off valid points as sophmoric and therefore not worth your time? Again, way to kill your own credibility.

  18. Ben Moreno Says:

    Thank you but I disagree with the quote. Sounds like something a really business minded person would write.

    Remember, all we are saying is that it is wrong to judge the whole movement by some open forum posts.

    Regardless, I appreciate the time you did give to discuss this with us.


  19. “Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.” – John Adams

    Rootnode: you are wise to view with skepticism those who would advocate a social order so at odds with human nature. Such societies have been advocated before, and there have been attempts at creating them. Each has failed, at great cost of life. Some of those who have advocated systems of governance at odds with human nature include Lenin, Mao and Stalin.

    Such a system can only be achieved through the forcible removal of those who don’t play by the rules. The use of such force by government trains that very government that force is the most effective way to achieve its aims. Force becomes a short-cut. Later, force becomes the primary means of obtaining government objectives.

    “There is no such thing as society” -Thatcher

    There are only individuals.

    Our Founding Fathers understood this and created a document that enshrined human rights:

    Freedom of expression and speech and assembly

    Freedom to own the means of ones own self-defense —a fundamental human right— and to avoid the government monopolizing force.

    This document was the Constitution of the United States of America.

    This document has not failed us. We have failed this document.

    It was created for brave, free, independent people to self-govern. We are no longer this people. We are a nation of cowards. A western society of cowards who would accept the central state transforming our rights into privileges, to be given out or revoked at the whim of the state.

    As a society of urban and suburban dependents, we fight for the scraps off the table of our overlords in Western capitals. We no longer rightfully fear government and seek to contrain it. Rather, we embrace it. We ask for its favors and its forgivenesses.

    And the solution presented to us by the towers of intellect with TVP is to once again embrace the failed centrally-planned, “designed” society. To trust in the elites of the movement, the ‘vanguard’. To embrace yet another collectivist scheme. The hook? Oh yes, to rid ourselves of money. Evil, evil money. That money which represents the fruits of our production and labor, that serves as the medium of our exchange with one another, however polluted by the inflation and taxation of central banks and national governments.

    Shame.

    Shame on us in the West.

    We should stand in shame, the cowardly, spoiled children that we are, having inherited the legacy of our forefathers, of our Founders, handed down to us from the minds and hands of giants, of free and brave men. We squander these gifts.

    “Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.” – John Adams

  20. Ben Moreno Says:

    Too bad he didn’t know then, what we know today.

  21. Jen Says:

    “I am sorry but I do not have time to engage in sophmoric debates.”

    I don’t have time for ‘sophomoric’ debates either, but I thought you were soliciting a discussion from Venus Project supporters. My mistake. But if you ever care to engage in an educated discussion, seriously weighing pros and cons, then I’m good for a live discussion on the issues. Phone, radio, whatever. I’m confident in my position.

    • Ben Moreno Says:

      Jen,

      How do I get in touch with you? I think we are on the same page on a lot of things. You can contact me through my blog by clicking on my name. Thanks.


  22. Ben & Jen (I hope you don’t mind me addressing both of you):

    “If the discussion involves
    What need does ownership serve?

    We have never in history been able to meet all people’s needs before due to lack of technology. So, my friend, it couldn’t possibly have been tried before in the way we are discussing it and on a global scale.

    The Venus Project is voluntary participation – so nobody would be taking ownership of anything claimed for ownership, such as your home, car, etc. But in a Venus Project society you would be considered old fashioned- clinging to a security out of a fear that is no longer relevant…”

    Then, yes, it is sophmoric in the most literal sense of the word: It is something undergraduates discuss in their dorm rooms as they are exposed to the writings of Marx, Engels, etc.

    It is only when they have been to the Lubyanka, to the mass graves in Cambodia, etc, that they delve further into the nature of ownership – what it means and what it represents, and of collective force – it’s vicious and inhuman power to destroy lives and societies under the euphemism of “design”.

    Until you have been to these places, the question is one to discuss with likeminded friends. Until you have seen the victims, the question is one for late-night dormatory conversations.

    On this board we have former members of elite military units, we have Constitutional fundamentalists and anti-state activists. We have those who have worked with refugees and evacuees. We have those who work in production and distribution and finance. We have emigrees from ‘collectivist’ regimes.

    Everyone is welcome. But questions such as yours will try the patience of those who have seen first hand what happens when the collective “designs” society.

    I wish you luck in your adventures in design. Never hesitate to comment or question. Fundamentally, your distrust of modern society, government and political economy is a very good thing. You should be distrustful. You should be frightful. But the solutions you seek will not be found in the collective, nor through the force/design imperative.

    -BWS

  23. Ben Moreno Says:

    It’s funny but I could have sworn the Venus project was trying to achieve an emergent society not a designed one.

    The design aspect only comes from the technology put into place to provide resources for the earths population.


  24. In other words, to allocate resources.

    Not by price discovery or merit, but by design. By central planning.

    Which resources do you allocate? And to whom do you allocate them? From whom? In the absence of ownership, where is the incentive to preserve and/or improve the resources?

    This is what I mean. These are very basic, 101 debates. They have been had countless times over the past several centuries.

    The answers are always the same: people wonderfully decide to share and distribute equally and end human suffering. That sounds very nice. It sounded nice when Lenin wrote about it.

    Have you read Solzenitzen?


  25. (sp corr: “Solzhenitsyn”)

    My apologies.

  26. Jen Says:

    “Until you have seen the victims, the question is one for late-night dormatory conversations.”

    I’m well out of college, an educated professional. You assume much about my life experiences without knowing a thing about me. You cannot speak to what I have seen or experienced in my life.

    Luck be yours.
    Signing off, jen


  27. Am I? Am I assuming too much? I think not.

    Have you seen the victims? You advocate a technological, collectivist society -absent money- that has been advocated and attempted before. So this is a fair question.

    Have you seen them? Have you seen piles of human hair? Have you seen tortured, disfigured human beings who have suffered through the “design” of the collective? Have you seen the skulls? Have you seen the scars?

    These victims all have a few things in common: their scars (both physical and mental) were given to them by other human beings in the name of the collective; the master plan involved something other than private ownership; what sounded so beautiful in a book or treatise, once enacted, quickly morphed into human horror.

    Ownership is the fundamental human right: to own ones thoughts, words and associates; to own the means of ones self-defense; to own and be secure in ones home and possessions.

    When these fundamental human rights of ownership have been taken away – for whatever well-intentioned cause – the result has been horror beyond that which one can understand if one has not seen it first hand.

  28. Ben Moreno Says:

    It will be a slow change, really slow, through education. There has to be an understanding world wide that resources will be available for all through high technology and there would be no point into trying to horde them.

    You raise a properly educated group of humans from birth with these teachings and you can bet they would behave as such.

    The problem is simply transition. This is the thing we need to figure out.

    It is obvious to me that our species can do much better than what we are doing now. This is what is the important idea to grasp.


  29. Education. Raising human beings with the correct training.

    Who does the education? Who raises the human beings correctly? If not their parents, than whom? To whom do you trust with this power?

    And what do you do with the parents who do not wish to give up their children and their education to the chosen elite, the “only ones” who have the power to correctly educate these children?

  30. Ben Moreno Says:

    It’s simple, you have to be the example. You have to trust yourself.

    It is obvious you clearly do not understand what the Venus project is proposing. I can tell you did not read everything.

    You should seriously read everything on the site first and see just how different the idea of a resource based economy with the earth as the central measure is than the past ideas of

    “a technological, collectivist society -absent money- that has been advocated and attempted before”, as you put it.


  31. Yes. Clearly what the Venus Project is proposing is beyond my understanding.

  32. Ben Moreno Says:

    Thank you for admitting that. All you have to do really is listen to Jacque Fresco speak on his videos.

    The guy is 93 years old, and this idea has been his life’s work. If you are like me and can tell right off the bat when a real person is talking, as opposed to some asshole trying to sell you something worthless, then it will make a lot of sense.

  33. hmmm Says:

    Read the lot of this, shame it didnt really go anywhere. Watched the video, went to the site/s then came here, as I was looking for a discussion of the judicial/policing aspect of TVP.

    Beyond the obvious issues with implementing the TVP.

    Thats what stuck out for me when watching the vid. Along the lines of, “if a guy kills in jealousy, he will not be punished, but educated, were solve the root problem etc etc.

    Just doesnt quite cut it does it!

    Never gonna work.

    And as for property being a burden, etc etc. Everything for everyone, again doesnt quite cut it does it.

    My skateboard is just right, I cant go using any old skateboard, this is tranined to my feet. So now im stuck with this extra burden, and I want somewhere to put it, a house will do, maybe that one near the skate park (do we have skateparks? how may people need em i guess huh?). So anyway i have my house and my skateboard. I meet a girl, she likes skateboards too, and this is great in TVP cause we can just skate together all day long. Im happy, shes happy, we start a family in our house near the skatepark, noones bothered us, food is free, new wheels are free. Boom were flying. Then some smart allec comes along and decides he wants to live near the skatepark too, at least for a bit, he heard he could go anywhere, its all for everyone, so why not. Only theres no house left near the skatepark, so he decides fuck it, im gonna go live in that house (our house – the best spot near the park). And guess what he does just that, he is intent on living here, we dont know what to do, one night he gets drunk on free booze, beats me up, rapes my wife and kicks around the kids. Now we are truly in a pickle. We cant call the cops, there isnt any, I think i remember the vid said something about educating him, social workers and sociologists and such, get on the net and search for a number… there isnt any. anyway blah blah blah.

    what can we do?

    • machupichu Says:

      In a world like The Venus Project proposes, travel would be a) quick b) efficient and c) free. “Skateparks” like all attractions, would be centrally located so that issues like the one you put forth are invalid. Any legitimate issues would be handled through applying the scientific method. If you feel that the scientific method is invalid, I’m not sure what else can be said to try to get you to understand the ideas of TVP.

      • barbedwiresmile Says:

        Regarding your comments on my credibility scattered throughout this section: those who use “skateparks” as their example may not be in the best position to attack another’s credibility.

      • machupichu Says:

        To your comment below, I’m assuming you locked this thread as I can’t reply to your comment. Nice move.

        Anyways, had you read the post I was referring to, the Original Poster used skate parks as an example. I was refuting his point.

  34. Mike Aldridge Says:

    Now before anyone jumps at me i have read the venus project through and through and even attented a talk with the man himself ,but i want to ask one question surrounding the idea of enjoying life to the fulliest for want of a better phrase,, but what exactly will we do,,??honestly,im not asking this in a snarling way but only in a curious way, will there still be movies,concerts,art,entertainment of all sorts,, sports?will we stil live in the housing estates and country houses we live in now>?? im just curious as to what aspect of our lives now as in enjoyment and fullilment will be changed???

  35. Moreno Says:

    Mike,

    Check out some of the videos on the Venus Project website. Jacque Fresco talks about one of the circular cities he designed and he explains that there is a big entertainment center in the middle of the city.

    Of course we will do almost all of the same stuff we will do now for entertainment and there will be new things too. We will have time to do more of it too. That is the whole point.

    The only thing that will change is our behavior toward one another. Once children all over the world are bought up to realize that technology is the key to a high standard of living and they learn how to relate to others with out countries and classicism dividing them then they will have entirely different attitude toward the world.

    They will read history about how there were once automobiles that were very dangerous and many people got killed. They will think, wow, everyone had to drive their own car??? That is too much work! The possibilities are endless.

    There will be a new emergent world society where people will not have to compete for jobs just to survive. No one will starve or be homeless.

    We won’t even think about things like war, poverty, economics and politics. People will want to work to make things better because they will have an awareness that their work directly impacts all people’s lives including their own.

  36. Marianne Says:

    I just wanted to post this to see if people have actually thought about how anything Jacques Fresco has proposed. The Zeitgeist movie tells people to think critically – so think critically about what the Venus Project is actually suggesting. The whole thing is ridiculous.

    Here are my questions based on text from the ridiculous money driven website…

    He proposed that the services of systems analysts, engineers, computer programmers, etc. will only be needed during the transition period. Sure, but who are they? Won’t they have extra advantage when they program these machines with their own vested interests. This is essentially a technocrat elite. This technocrat elite will “carry out the restoration of the environment to near natural conditions as possible on land and in the sea” How is this even feasible?

    “They will also economically layout the most efficient way to manage transportation, agriculture, city planning, and production” Hmm…this sounds like a techno-crat elite to me – why do they decide?).

    “We need a current survey of all available planetary resources” what?? How the hell is this going to happen? This is ridiculous?!?!
    This is completely unfeasible. Think about it.

    “This survey will enable us to determine the parameters for global planning for humanizing social and technological development, based on the carrying capacity of Earth and the needs of its people” What happens if the computers tell us the human population exceeds the carrying capacity of the earth? The computers kill a bunch of humans?

    “The function of the first city is to test the validity of design parameters and make necessary changes as needed. It will further this new social direction on many fronts with books, magazines, TV, radio, seminars, theater, and theme parks” Aren’t these the things the supposed current banking elite is keeping us distracted with?

    “Exercise in our schools would not be mandatory, monotonous, or involve competition, but would be incorporated directly into the classroom experience. For instance, a craft shop the children enjoy using might be located on a hilltop in the middle of a lake. To get there, the children would have to row a boat, and then climb the hilltop” WHAT THE HELL?

    “The Venus Project calls for a cybernated society in which computers could replace the outmoded system of electing politicians that, in most cases, represent the entrenched vested interests” But who programs the machines in the first place- wouldn’t they program them with their own vested interests? Would Jacques Fresco be the one to do it?

    I don’t know about you, but I think this is all total horse shit

    This group propagates their films to solicit donations to their organization, which in reality does nothing.

    Some of the ideas in the movie are interesting, but the agenda behind it is crazy.

    • machupichu Says:

      Your comments are based on what you propose as being truths. Two companies right now are working on projects to take a global survey of the world’s resources, HP being one of them. These aren’t impossible tasks so I recommend that everyone tries their best not to project your own ignorance into your ideas.

      • anticultists Says:

        Mapping the worlds resources, i see.

        So now we know where to look for all the worlds resources, we also know what all the resources we will need for the future technology are.

        And all these large companies who spend millions to produce a map and intel, on what they term “all the worlds resources” are going to simply hand them over for free, to you the average internet user to use at your own discretion.

        “Here you go madam/sir have access to my quadrillion dollar resource locations, but…please don’t let those capitalist dog companies know for free, they may capitalise on them and not pay me.”

        Please, it begs belief you think that they will be available for the venus project to use.

      • machupichu Says:

        No, the discussion point at hand was that it was stated that performing an audit of the world’s resources was not possible.

        I was merely stating that technology to do such a task is available and is currently being deployed. Nothing else.

      • anticultists Says:

        jolly goood, the venus project is exempt from attaining the research without purchase and free availability, and exempt from providing the sciencific research itself.

  37. Jen W Says:

    Marianne,
    This is one of many videos that answers some of the questions you raise.

    http://vimeo.com/7979712

    – jen

  38. gillian Says:

    Is anyone curious why there is so much hype going on about the Venus Project? The answer lies in the Zeitgeist Movement, which sole purpose is promoting the Venus Project. “Activists” are encouraged to use as many outlets as they can to “spread the word” and get more people interested in the Venus Project. They have about 370,000 members listed on their website. Then the curious wander onto the Venus Project website and either donate or not. In 2008 the Venus Project’s NPO Future by Design made about $28,000. Figures from 2009 are not yet available, but it is sure to be substantially more due to all the free advertising it is receiving from the Zeitgeist Movement. Meanwhile the objectives, which are clearly stated on the Venus Project website, are to first sell their materials, and then proceed to make a feature film. In fact the Venus Project seems to be so completely absorbed in its own self-promotion and movie production objectives that it forgot that its original intention was to build a test city. Members of the Zeitgeist Movement meanwhile are not given transparency of financial activities of the Venus Project. They are just encouraged to read and research more about the project and continue to spread the word. Dissenting views are not allowed on the Zeitgeist forum. Threads that offer opposing views, criticize, or demand transparency are often deleted, and the offending poster banned.

    Zeitgeist members are encouraged to read and study a heap of materials in order to “educate” themselves and be able to “educate” the rest of the world. There are several books, speeches, and videos for members to listen to. There are weekly addresses given by founder Peter Joseph and the Venus Project. This is pure indoctrination tactics. Members become so absorbed in the fantasy of a new society that they forget the practical ways of attaining that society i.e. proving or disproving the claims that a Resource Based Economy is actually a viable alternative. Meanwhile members go out into the world and onto the net telling people about the Venus Project and directing them to their website. Funds indeed are being raised to support the Venus Project’s movie making efforts – more indoctrination materials. Money is also being used to fund a world lecture tour for Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows to such destinations as Copenhagen, London, and Cancun. All of this is in plain sight on thevenusproject.com.

    Members are so passionate about the Venus Project that they tend to believe they are changing the world by engaging in arguments on the internet. They feel this way because of the rhetoric from Peter Joseph (who does not disclose his real name) and the rhetoric on both the Zeitgeist and Venus Project websites. The rhetoric leads one to believe that by supporting the Venus Project one will be helping to solve the world’s problems. Obviously, members can’t argue their way to a brighter future for all. What they need to realize is that anyone who goes around telling people how they SHOULD live and how the WORLD SHOULD be run, is going to be treated with skepticism. Their best argument is data and proof to support their claims. The activists fail to recognize that they are not participants in a humanitarian movement, but a very political one. The Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement are a merging of the Technocratic Movement, and the New Left Movement of the 1960s, which is a tweaking of Marxism. This is not to state that the Venus Project is Communism, but a technocratic variation of it.

    • anticultists Says:

      Indeed gillian, i too have become aware of this, and i also find that the movement has one way of saying things it believes, yet another in what its actions are on its own forum.

      Can you say hypocritical ?

      Plus all the we can build a city like this now, and we wont be building a city like this anytime soon from jacque is very confusing.

      can we ? cant we ?
      will we ? wont we ?

      And round and round it goes discussing the possibilities rather than the realities, with no evidence to back it up.

      • Stuart Says:

        anticultists
        I support the movement, believe in the possibilities of the Venus Project, and love the ideas of Jacque Fresco. And also agree with PJ on many points.

        But I completely agree with you. The movement is currently stagnated and it does just go round and round. I do my best to point in the right direction, taking the best from the ideas. But it seems restricted by its own inability to reject its own contradictions.

  39. David Zwolski Says:

    a review of your post by one of TZM radio shows.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio/2009/12/30/v-radio-debunking-an-anti-zeitgeist-blog

    happy new year all the best.


  40. London Lecture part 2 of 2:

    “Communism isn’t radical enough.”

    “It’s too old-fashioned.”


  41. Thank you, David. I am listening. This radio host is welcome to contact me via email or the blog if he desires a two-way discussion.


  42. Having listened to the radio program on VTV radio, I want to respond to one specific comment at the end of the show regarding my being banned from TVP forum. The host stated that he was a moderator and that he didn’t know why I was banned.

    I was banned due to my comments on the forum, as posted on my original blog post above. Nothing more and nothing less. I was banned for my opinion and daring to challenge TVP. Pure and simple.

    This is fine. I respect the owners of the forum to allow or ban anyone they see fit. But I wanted to set the record straight in this regard that there were no other issues than my comments on the forum as reproduced here.

    Other than that, I would respond to much of what the host said by suggesting that he may be confusing “capitalism” with “corporatism”- a form of economic statism. This corporatist system is the one we are living under in the United States (and much of the world) today.

  43. VTV Says:

    As far as you being banned for no reason other then not supporting what we are doing, can you please go to the forums and provide me with links to the posts your talking about? I am sorry I just get people who claim that is the only reason they were banned and repeatedly it becomes clear that they often have engaged in Ad Hominem or personal attack when their debates were not going to well.


    • No worries. Too time-consuming and it’s water under the bridge. But it was important to state for the recrod.

      Let me know what kind of on-line format we can work out if you are interested in constructive debate. You hosted a good show, regardless of our disagreements.

      The reality is that we will not reach agreement on this issue. I think that much is clear. But dismantling my points before your audience helps you advance your cause. The opposite is also true.

      I asked one question while you were on line – it’s at the top of my blog as a reply to your first post. I asked this question after one of your co-hosts (or guests?) stated that the 2nd Amendment was now “irrelevant” as it was specific to militias. This has been debated ad nauseum and I don’t think it’s central to our specific conversation. However, the broader issue of firearm ownership is. I’ll repeat the question here:

      “I appreciate your allowing me to participate in the debate. However, I can only do so on-line via email or this blog. Not by telephone. And I do not have access to Skype at the moment for IM.

      A question for you as it regards what you see as my preoccupation with “force”. If proponents of TVP truly have no desire to use force today (and can guarantee the movement will never use force in the future) then why are you opposed to private ownership of firearms? Guarantee me a right to own the means of my self-defense and you are welcome to attempt to peacefully create any form of society you want, based on the individual’s choice to opt in or opt out of that society.”

      I have other questions, but let’s start with this one. Thank you. -BWS

      • VTV Says:

        Go back and listen to the whole show, I covered that issue. We don’t care if you own guns. Just don’t hurt anyone with them and none of us will care.

      • Ted Schabacker Says:

        “No worries. Too time-consuming and it’s water under the bridge. But it was important to state for the recrod.”
        I just LOLed at this bullshit.


  44. […] BarbedWireSmile BarbedWireSmile. […]

    • crocodiletears Says:

      well i certainly feel out of my depth as i lack any formal political study so my knowledge is perception based. also i’ve never seen piles of human hair outside a barber

      i came across this debate after discovering the zeitgeist movement through spam added randomly to a bit torrent hosting website; perhaps some tvp members are embracing communal ownership prior to widespread acceptance?

      it always fascinates me that these types of organisations completely ignore human nature and propose change by indoctrination. err sorry, “education”. as much as i’d like to believe that a roddenberry-esque future is possible, i must agree that it’s my hypothetical gun protecting my hypothetical beach house that i hypothetically earned from working damn hypothetically hard. i may not be necessary to “own” it according to tvp dictates, but i don’t really want to share it either. call me misanthropic

      incidentally since i’ve hypothetically spent all this time working to buy my beach house, i’m feeling pretty good about myself and i’ve kept pretty busy. would i possess the same self esteem if i’d not set and achieved tangible goals? what would i have done all day had tvp been in power? i mean, been in charge. rather, been ummm… hmmm… i can’t skate and rape ALL day!

      anyway, i’ll stop rambling. i felt compelled to comment when i reached the end of the column and saw vtv’s 12.30.09 15:32 statement, and bws subsequent smile. hasn’t that been bws’ point all year vtv? what action will you take when you decide to care? how will it differ from current action of the “state/tribe/collective”?

      you carry an intellectual gun bws. i’ve learned something

      • ajcbencomo Says:

        you are disgusting crocodiletears.

        you and BWS clearly don’t understand the movements intentions, purposefully or not. I would rather live in a world that is trying to understand and better the themselves and the environment rather than to live with people who think that raping and skating is completely natural.

        But you both,I say, have been raised to believe what you believe So I can’t blame you.

        Furthermore, you are just two people out of billions that don’t agree with the movement, and so everyone should know that this debate is trully going nowhere.

        One question, who is the real estate agent for Earth?

      • ajcbencomo Says:

        OOPs I meant you are only 2 people who don’t agree with the movement, and there is billions more that will most likely understand.

      • crocodiletears Says:

        Hi ajcbencomo

        Thanks for your feedback, it’s always nice to hear from a contributor 🙂

        I’ve just a few thoughts on your post.

        It’s best to make an informed comment, reading the previous posts is a good place to start. On the 29th of June, hmmm made a point using an example including a skater who is not adverse to a bit of raping on the side. But I’m sure you’ve read it; I doubt you’re one of those folks who weigh into a forum and start personally attacking contributors from a position of ignorance.

        Just while we’re talking about raping; you love dolphins right? Everyone loves dolphins! They’re so sweet and funny, and they’re just likes us but with flippers; those clever, be-flippered mammals. Well something you may not know about dolphins, is they love a good raping. Yep, dolphins actually mate through pack raping. Girl dolphins submit to the shenanigans because it means those playful boy dolphins will wonder if the baby is theirs, which makes them less likely to kill it after birth. Oh those wacky dolphins! Hang on, maybe you’re right: it could be that they’re not completely natural with their raping.

        You’re certainly right that skating isn’t completely natural. It’s certainly less natural than, say, walking. Or even swimming. Maybe dolphin rapists are more completely natural than skating rapists? I don’t know… I’m no scientist. Although I am undertaking a degree in Nanotechnology.

        Perhaps what you meant to say was you’d rather not live with people who think that raping is completely moral and skating is completely natural? (I’m not quite sure what you have against skating)

        We’re definitely on the same page about the billions of people who don’t agree with the movement. Nice point!

        I suspect the real estate agent for earth is the one with the biggest gun… he may not want to surrender it to your movement…

        Anyway, thanks again!

  45. shwan Says:

    To understand TVP you have to look at in a hole new perspective. You can not bring in money related questions about behavior and other stuff to the TVP, because money is not apart of the TVP. Money is apart of Monetary-system

    In other words, if I wanted to learn about Mathematics, I will not understand it if I comfuse it with the rules of Chemistry, because both are based on different systems and have different mechanisms.

    Things like ownership, compete, greed, violence, have guns, the need to defend one self, desire to have power, laws, police force, poverty and preventable diseases is born out of this monetary system. It does not matter if it is capitalism, socialism or communism but everywhere you go you will see those things in every country.

    But those things does not apply to TVP because TVP is not based on money.

    • barbedwiresmile Says:

      Ah, but herein we find the problem, Shwan: human society IS based on money or, more specifically, what money REPRESENTS: free and private ownership; the free exchange of goods and labor; and the right of private creativity.

      This is why any “planned” society that has attempted to ignore this reality has not only failed, but brought tyranny that killed millions. I remind you that it is your TVP leader that said:

      “COMMUNISM IS NOT RADICAL ENOUGH”

      • shwan Says:

        Okey, lets make some things clear.

        In this system you need to have money to buy and own things, example if you need food you need to have money, if you wanna own a house you need to have money.
        To get money you need to work for it. Therefore we get our first economic law here, that is if you do anything you have to profit from it otherwise it makes no sense to do it.
        Now, competing is necessary and is self build in this system, if there were no competing the system would not work and would collapse (a perfect example is the financial crisis we saw in 2008). And a system based on gaining money as much as possible will inevitably lead to corruption, greed and all those things we see in the world today. Things like war, killing other, destroying resources is the means to gain as much money as possible. If there were no war, the system would not work, if there were no financial crisis the system would not work and if there were no competing like I said the system would not work.

        Now, we get tricked into believing that the monetary-system is promoting democracy, free and private ownership, free exchange of goods and labor; and the right of private creativity. Of course we have the chance to get those things but look at the facts, look at the world today and you will see that alongside those things we also have war, poverty, greed, miserables life and much much more. Democracy and War is different sides of the same coin. You can not have democracy without war, you can not have the right of ownership without someone else dieing in poverty, you can not have compete without someone be the winner and the other being the looser.

        I know that you think it is the bankers and politicians fault that we have war poverty and preventable diseases, but it is not. You have been lied to. We have had all those bad things from the beginning of mankind. That’s because the system have been the same from the beginning of mankind, of course it has been updated from time to time but nevertheless it is the same old system. The system promotes war, killing other, compete, gain control, desire to have power and other stuff. Mankind have had the same system as the other animals have today in the jungle.

        But the deferents between us and other animals is that we can SEE beyond our conditioned mind by this system.

        I really hope you change your mind and see the dangerous in how we humans have been behaving thus far. Don’t take my word for it, all you need to do is observing the world as it is today.

  46. simon Says:

    I hope your skeptiscm brings you joy and happines…

  47. barbedwiresmile Says:

    I hope your blind faith does not bring me tyranny.

    Fortunately, it seems unlikely TVP will have its chance to enforce its version of a ‘planned society’ upon the armed and free.

    • allcapacity Says:

      I do hope you see the irony in what you have just uttered?

      You see in the system we live in right now, a person like you considers it imperative to own a gun, because you think it’ll guarantee your protection. The train of thought that you follow is that; while I own property I’m entitled to defend it from anyone that wishes to appropriate it from me. And if you happen to be a weak person physically a gun will give you the capability to fend off anyone, big or small, that wishes to take that which you own. You may kill that person or you may injure that person, but the fact will be that you would have sent your message, which is: do not mess with barbedwiresmile, and if you do not than you may suffer the consequences.
      Now I ask you in light of this, what stops anyone from getting more people, bigger guns, and more ammunition etc than you, to appropriate that which they want or need? In fact what stops you from doing just the same?
      The answer is no one, and it all depends on your or anyone’s capabilities to do that! Capabilities in this case is the amount of resources you have that allows you to acquire bigger guns, more ammunition and of course convince people to do it with you.

      So you see, your proposition of owning guns and private property inevitably leads to some owning more guns and more property than others and therefore control or attempt to control those that are less fortunate. Mind you that those that are less fortunate will be in an environment that would make them be just that, “the less fortunate.”
      The fact behind it is that those that are more powerful will always exact their will on those that are not so powerful; hence you see what the United States does in its own soil and on a world scale in the name of capitalism, free enterprise, democracy or in the name of the civilized world.
      But you see the United States gets this power from its Corporations which use people and resources for their growth.

      Owning guns, owning property and exacting laws, have failed to solve the problems that have led to this decadent world state. The system that you so fervently support refuses to address the root causes of these problems. And it seems to me that you fail to see them too.
      So you see when you say “I hope your blind faith does not bring me tyranny.” It makes me wonder whether or not you are also not just a blind follower, in a system that is actually leading us to a system that is fascist and tyrannical.

  48. barbedwiresmile Says:

    What a simplistic and petty view of firearms ownership. There is one element of truth in your post, however: they aways come for your guns.

    20 million dead Russians, killed by their own “movement”, wished they owned the means to their self-defense. If not to “win”, then at least to give the cadres pause. 7 million+ Jews wished they had owned the means to at least die protecting those they loved. 20 million Chinese? 30 million? We’ll never know.

    Show me an anti-establishment movement that honestly and overtly promotes to private ownership of firearms and I’ll take your comments on this seriously. But we all know TVP is anti-firearms. Let’s stop this pretense. After all, the peasants must first be disarmed to design the perfect society. Oh right, there will be no peasants with TVP. But whoever there is won’t need firearms regardless.

    No man is free when the state, tribe or collective has a monopoly on the use of force.

    • allcapacity Says:

      “What a simplistic and petty view of firearms ownership.”

      First of all what is so complicated about the concept of ownership of firearms, and how is my view of little significance?
      Firearms are used for defence as well as for control, it’s as simple as that. Why would one use it for defence, because somebody’s trying to use it for control, why would one use it for control, because they don’t want any defence. It is a vicious cycle! Why is it so difficult for you to see that the end product of the ownership of firearms, whether they are used for defence or for control, is that everyone will continue to arm themselves with more and more powerful weapons, and to eventually use them to the detriment of others and the entire planet?
      The way I see it, whether people died in the past or will die in the future it is because all systems up to now have failed miserably to address the root causes of the problems we are facing. It is sad that because of this failure to address the root causes of the problems, we find that the ownership of guns or weapons of mass destruction is one of the best measures of defence.
      A good metaphor has been said that goes like this: You may stomp on the ants that come from underneath the fridge all you want or you can open the fridge and remove the spoiled food that’s causing the infestation of ants to begin with.
      Unfortunately all systems to this day have failed to spot the rotten food that is the cause of a myriad of problems we have always faced.

      If we look at some cases: someone who just got robbed at gunpoint may think that, if they also had a gun the robbery might not have taken place. The establishment sentences a murderer or a rapist to life imprisonment. A father kills someone defending his family, etc. You see all these cases as well as many others such as the (“20 million dead Russians, killed by their own “movement” “ the “7 million+ Jews” or the “30 million Chinese” ), have a root cause, and yes we may punish the abnormal by either killing them or imprisoning them, these solutions are merely temporary, and may generate a greater and larger amount of abnormalities, but one thing is clear all these so-called solutions are actually not solutions at all, they are merely what we call Band-Aid solutions, and fail to uncover and fail to attempt to resolve the real problems, the problems that caused that type of behaviour in the first place.

      You ask “Show me an anti-establishment movement that honestly and overtly promotes to private ownership of firearms.” Well the Freedom Movement (Alex Jones) does just that.
      I would like you to tell me explicitly what you plan to reveal to me by asking me the above question?

      ” But we all know TVP is anti-firearms. Let’s stop this pretence. After all, the peasants must first be disarmed to design the perfect society. Oh right, there will be no peasants with TVP. But whoever there is won’t need firearms regardless.”

      First of all the TVP is not hiding behind some pretence to state its view about firearms, and that is, that firearms are not the solve-all for the problems we face as human beings. Second of all, the TVP proposes that all human beings declare the earth’s resources as common heritage of all of the world’s people, as well as to consider the current monetary system obsolete. It proposes a “redesign of a culture, in which the age-old inadequacies of war, poverty, hunger, debt, environmental degradation and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but totally unacceptable.” (http://www2.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/about) and only if everyone considers this proposal viable, then the ownership of firearms or weapons of mass destruction will be highly discouraged, NOT BY FORCE, but by educating humans about the inadequacy of the use of weapons to solve our problems. And third of all, you’re sceptical about TVP’s position on the ownership of firearms and you think that it targets a specific stratum of society, but the TVP does not target peasants or middle-class or upper-class, it looks into society or Earth as one single organism in which there should be no stratification of people but rather just the relationship of human beings to their environment, Earth inclusive.

      “No man is free when the state, tribe or collective has a monopoly on the use of force.”

      The system you advocate inevitably leads to a concentration of the use of force on the hands of a few, and guess what? The system you advocate is meant to lead to a strategic monopoly.
      The TVP does not constitute a state, tribe, the collective or even an ideology; it is simply uses the scientific method to arrive at decisions. Therefore the solutions or alternatives are as close to an empirical base was possible.
      The TVP does not advocate the use of force or the concentration of it on the hands of a few. The TVP is formulated in such a way as to avoid and eventually remove conditions for such behaviour, not by just saying it but by presenting practical and implementable solutions.

      I would presumptuous enough to say that I think you advocate the use of firearms much like an insurance policy. Better to have one and not need it, than need it and not have one? The reason I make this assumption, is because I don’t think that you really mean to want to hurt anyone but owning a gun, but you also do not want anyone to hurt you, those you love, and appropriate that which may belong to you.
      What if the reasons that would make anyone to want to hurt you, those you love, and appropriate that which may belong to you were to be addressed so as to revamp and eventually remove the conditions that would cause that type of behaviour to take place? Would you still be so adamant about owning a gun?
      Based on the assumption I made above, I will further assume that your focus about gun ownership is really about ownership in general? And if so isn’t that really what we should be talking about?

  49. gillian Says:

    Zeitgeist members are generally aware that the Venus Project operates under a non-profit 501c, but they are blind to the fact that it is a for-profit organization as well.

    http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_hxlxws

    “Venus Project Inc is a private company located in Venus, FL. Current estimates show this company has annual revenue of $120,000 and employs a staff of approximately 2.”

    The Venus Project, Inc. also currently operates under the name “Global Cybervisions” and was actually established in February, 1995.
    Reference:
    http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Venus/the-venus-project-inc-6481878.aspx

    Donations to the Venus Project via their website go to their non-profit sector, but other revenues go to the for-profit sector, which is not listed anywhere on their website. The fact that the Venus Project is secretly operating under three names is dubious, since Zeitgeist members are currently laboring for the Venus Project under the impression that there is no profit motive involved.

    Also:

    Back in 1974, when Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project appeared on Larry King, he was misrepresented as having a PhD in Human Factors Engineering.

    [video src="http://s463.photobucket.com/albums/qq360/pjcheat/?action=view&current=jacquefrescoonlarryking1974-phdclai.flv" /]

    Notice how Fresco winces as his false credentials are read, but he does not clarify to Larry King that he is not a doctor of anything, but is in fact self-taught. This oversight is more likely to be fraudulent than innocent as detailed here:

    http://anticultist.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/dr-jacque-fresco-phd-in-human-factors-engineering/#comment-135


  50. I’ll give you a pat on the back just for the utter endeavour in this post.

  51. Steven Vornov Says:

    Hi send me an email. I appreciated your kind words. I asked Eric to disable my account and I will not return.

    Jerseycitysteve

  52. Enarca Says:

    Hi! i am 23, and i cant believe i have the whole threat.
    i found out about zeitgeist not that long ago through UCLA peers. I have to thank both TVP, BWS, Jen, MachuPichu, allcapacity for helping clear some doubts that i had about TVP. I hope, BWS, that you take no offense on the following, but some of your arguments and rebuttals (which are legit), do show that you have not read thoroughly and with an open-minded position the contents of TVP and therefore not gasped the message it conveys. I am grateful though for where your questions had led me, to belief more on TVP and what human education can achieve. Education, perception and mind is the only thing real… and through a system like that we can achieve endless knowledge on ANY human field we desire to. Lets say, BWS that, HYPOTHETICALLY TVP is not good enough for you, you still find it very flawed and not worth of a shot (i am implying that you think that, i am aware) answer me this please, is the goal a bad idea? where are we now? are you happy with the world now? 98% of the world population is suffering or dying under oppression, modern day slavery and/or manipulation of the 2%… the economic system is collapsing, we have to become aware and assimilate to a better future… THE PATHWAY STARTS WITH EDUCATION (this is in regards to your comments of being a goal rather than a journey and “the end justifies the means”), thats the first step, by understanding it we will embrace it and make it eventually, a reality. Do you have a better idea? maybe just wait the economic individualistic system just magically turns on itself and starts given without asking? whats your plan? remenber that america is one privileg country is easy for us to say “go to the cambodian’s graves of pol pot regime” but where you when that happened? are still in cambodia now to talk about their economic repression? In my humble opinion TVP is not something that is coerced in anyone, is something logic and so, but so good, that it becomes utopian, silly and therefor not worth of our time or interest. BUT! once people know that it is possible, that it can happen, that technology allows us, with-out a monetary system and oligarchies, to be happy, then we embrace it and at least we become aware that it is not JUST a dream, we CAN make it happen, we have to make it happen! otherwise we are doomed; sadly with all the technological progress, comes hand in hand with the greed, violence and power thirst that can never be quenched, fueled and guided by the monetary system, (which can buy all but real happiness, the happiness that comes when you realize that we are all one. That the human you are killing, stealing or deceiving is at the end is yourself, the happiness of given happiness has no price). Doomed beacuse if we choose not to change or change in the terms of a flawed systems, we are bounded to suffer and pain. 98% of the world BWS, how can anyone say that we are fine? money was not evil (thanks to however said it, i thought it was), it was just a transition, a necessary transition, we must now move on. EDUCATION and technology for everyone. no more underdeveloped countries, no more gullivle poeple that will die for some other persons beliefs and benefits, no more boundaries that separate us, no more wars or sick violence. one earth, we as a whole thinking and inventing, learning and sharing, we as whole being happy, living and exploring, 100 years of life will fall short. We will thrive ultil the sun starts diying, or we will maybe have expanded to other planets? maybe another galaxy? maybe even move our planet? WHO KNOWS???!!! is our critical thinking that takes us forward! our ability to wonder and ponder questions… is called natural philosophy or science!
    i for one believe in TVP because it is feasible, it can be attained and we MUST make something happen beacuse if we just keep blaming and pointing fingers at past or current figures or issues, time is going to fly and the next generations will have less and less time. I hope change comes with-out violence like Rootnode said, but i also doubt it.
    All in All i want to thank again the people and all poster in this threat very much, speacially BWS for allowing an open discussion and sheeding light into what in my opinion is the best option in our breaking table.

    PS: Jen, allcapacity and machupichu, how can i get in contact, i also think we are on the same page.

    peace

  53. Enarca Says:

    sorry about my grammatical errors and missing words, i hope you guys can make sense of what my message is. in my defense, english is my second language, i was born in Peru and came to the us 4 years ago. Second, is 6 in the morning and i have a speech to give today morning (doing research is how i stumbled on this threat).

  54. Ted Schabacker Says:

    @BWS

    I Think this discussion is getting a little sidetracked.

    In an RBE, If posessing a gun makes you feel safe or happy, thats just fine. Just don’t be suprized when people give you wierd looks. But, noone will bother taking it away from you, because you’d either have or be able to get all the things you would need or want so you would have no motive to hurt anyone. Besides, it would come in handy if the machines were ever to revolt (this is actually very unlikely for the AI’s would probably be able to make yet another system in their place and join the humans in the quest of life) but it can also be used for recreation as well. Target shooting is fun.

    also I don’t think anyone who joined the ZM were forced to do so. and I don’t think anyone has to be forced to change their way of life if they think it’s right. all those instances of communism failed because they came to early. untill now we didn’t have sufficient technology to sustain a true RBE, so they still had scarcity of resources which were competed for and thus monopolized by the ruling elite and they still needed human workers who eventually got pissed at the realization that nothing had changed. But, today, we don’t have that excuse. Today, people shouldn’t have to work for anyone because almost all jobs can be automated and people shouldn’t have to fight for resources because there is enough to go around. it is only a mater of how people utilize the scientific method and thus their technology in order to get those goods and services distributed in a manner that satisfies everyone. Once we get a demo city going, and it turns out to be a success, then people can just go visit and see how well it goes and realize that this is better and change themselves. or they can even give their own input on how they can improve the system. basically if it works, people will join without any force at all.

    The truth should not have to be armed.

    I hope this clarifies any missunderstandings we all may have. furthermore I hope that one day, you will be able to see the feasibility and the merit in what the VP and ZM have to say. but you will probably swallow this up in one little sentence fragment: “Too Long; Didn’t Read.” That’s what it looks like you have done throuout the whole comment history.

  55. Adam Shafffer Says:

    Hello BWS, I am a member of the Zeitgeist Movement and I would be happy to have a debate with you about the ideas behind the Venus Project. It would most likely have to be via email or a forum. If you are interested in having a genuine discussion about this topic please email me.

  56. Will Says:

    Look guys, I watched the movie checked out the website even looked up cult references. So far…so far…I completely satisfied. While I may have questions on some of the info presented (only because I don’t know otherwise), I have no reason to try to debunk anything at this time, it’s a good ideal. I don’t see a “One Leader figure” and I wouldn’t except one. I just see a guy with a good vision. Hell, I have the same one. Now, if I start getting hassled for money, or for inviting others to join in the movement, or if sex becomes an issue I’ll wash my hands of it. I for one am not gullible or stupid. That being said, if information comes to light that sets off alarms, again I will wash my hands of it. What I see isn’t a cult as I know a cult to be, it’s just a positive movement. If I have made a mistake by joining a facebook group, who cares? We live, we learn. I will say for a guy who is ex-military and a talented and productive employee and a dedicated student late in life, I have seen my share of hardship and misery. Not only of myself but of others as well. I have had employers break promises and seen yes men get promotions to the point that I had already realized most of the points that the movement expresses before I ever heard of them. None of this will ever happen in our life time. I will never give this group any money. I will however follow the ideal and recommend the movie to friends.If this is a cult it’s a lousy one. The special interest groups that line the pockets of our government are more cultish than TZM could ever be…but if in time I find anything that stinks…I wash my hands of it. It’s that simple.

  57. Edwin K Says:

    man these guys are creepy.
    at first i thought this whole ‘no money’ thing would work, but they’re going about it completely wrong, if they want this kind of thing to work they shouldn’t enforce it onto people.

    definitely not looking to join these guys now.

    like they say in Dragons Den; ‘I’m out’.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: