Zeitgeist

[Nox]

I know Zeitgeist is mostly conspiracy theory, but I just watched their part on religion and it makes alot of sense to me.

Can anyone else who's seen the part about religion throw in their two cents?

[EvilRedGuy]

You mean 'The Zeitgeist Movement'? I agree with it too(most of it, not all of it), don't know what to say about it other than it being a likely reason. The later was conspiracy theories (9/11, etc.), however they drop the nutjob theories in there second or third movie i believe so don't call them conspiracy theorists anymore, unless you go to their forums there are some nutjobs there but the educated people are trying to combat them. TVP (The Venus Project) although made a distinction towards them in April this year because of those spiritual-magical things Joseph thought out still works together, contrary to popular rumors/belief. Just my 2 cents.

All religions are inspired by other religions, this is why the most popular ones are most similar. Things gets inspired by things, you know.

[Comrade Gwydion]

With part on religion, do you mean "movie 1 part 1: the greatest story ever told" or do you mean the whole first movie?
Recently I've only seen Movie 1 part 1. I think it's quite interesting, but also totally irrelevant to anything political. From a personal point of view, I'm interested in the astrological/pagan roots of christianity. From a political point of view, I don't give a shit about anything theological.

[DeBon]

I've been looking into the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement for the past week now, I fear I'm slowly turning into a technocratic utopianist more and more everyday.

As for your question, I've watched every Zeitgeist movie twice, listened to hours of Jaqcue Fresco's lectures, and a bit of Peter Joseph (both belong to different organizations with similar aims) so I can confidently say this: The first video, the greatest story ever told, the 9/11 stuff, and all those conspiracies formed the basis for the Zeitgeist movement years ago, it served as a sort of truther movement for more Left thinkers. The Zeitgeist Movement's goal isn't to spread these conspiracies around though, their aim is to spread the idea of a resource based economy and have a change in values, a sort of revolution of the human mind, like the ultimate human rights movement. They don't have an agenda or much of a manifesto, their ideas and blueprints for a resource based economy are in the hand of Jacque Fresco, head of the Venus Project.

To be more direct about the views depicted in the first video on how thousands of religions before Christianity shared common repetitive traits, I haven't ever heard it thoroughly debunked.

[chuy]

Could someone please expand on what exactly The Venus Project means by a "resource-based economy"? (I'm too lazy to take the time to navigate through thier info):o

[DeBon]

Could someone please expand on what exactly The Venus Project means by a "resource-based economy"? (I'm too lazy to take the time to navigate through thier info):o

I'll sum it up to the best of my abilities.
Basically, we have enough resources and materials on this planet to house, feed, and clothe everyone human being. The idea is to eliminate monetary incentive, because it is the root of all evil, no matter what if there is monetary incentive things will become corrupt. Make some federal drug administration to ensure the safety of food? It ends up getting bought out buy commercial farmers. Make a bureaucratic branch to handle Indian affairs? It gets ran buy old white supremacists. So the idea is to eliminate the monetary system and replace it with a system that determines how much of each resource we have, and how we can improve the quality of life for people.

Decisions that would generally be left in the hands of politicians are left in the hands of educated scientists and problem solvers. Think about it. Ask any politician you know "how can you increase agricultural crop yield, or make vegetables grow faster to feed an ever growing population?" or "how do you plan to house everyone" they won't know jack shit about it. People who have the ability to write laws that can control every aspect of life should know a little bit of everything, they should be generalists, knowing agriculture, civil science, anthropology, all sort of things, not how to keep up an image and make people happy.

A lot of the Venus Project is setting up blueprints for how a resource based economy would work, instead of just analyzing the world and saying "this is how things should be" it takes a scientific approach and answering questions.

Jacque Fresco backs his ideas up with a lot of 'nurture vs nature' concepts, if you ever get the chance just look up 'Jacque Fresco lecture' on YouTube. They're not that boring really, and he answers pretty much any question you could ever have about the Venus Project or a resource based economy.

[The Idler]

Its not a analysis of the class-origins of religion or politics. Nor is it a class-based analysis of the solution.

[DeBon]

Its not a analysis of the class-origins of religion or politics. Nor is it a class-based analysis of the solution.

Jacque Fresco is a bigger critique of religion than Marx. And how can you say that? The Venus Project addresses more than the class struggle of the developed world, it addresses this the 'class struggle', social problems, and socioeconomics, with a modern scientific approach.

[RedZezz]

I thought Skeptic Magazine did a good job of reviewing that part of the movie. I will post their article:

<B>
The Greatest Story Ever Garbled

by Tim Callahan

Perhaps the worst aspect of “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” Part I of Peter Joseph’s Internet film, Zeitgeist, is that some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally — and sloppily — mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. Joseph’s main argument is that Jesus never existed and is in fact a mythical character based on earlier sun gods. He sees all the motifs and characters of the New Testament as coded astrological or solar references. The argument that Jesus was a mythical construct has been made before — for example by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their 1999 book, The Jesus Mysteries, though Freke and Gandy made their argument with a far greater level of scholarship. In reducing Jesus to a sun god, Joseph ignores — as Freke and Gandy did before him — the powerful current of messianic apocalypticism prevalent in first century Judea. The fact that there were references back to earlier dying and rising gods in the Christ myth can lend an air of spurious scholarship to Zeitgeist, as long as one ignores the equally important messianic myth and the fact that there is a viable basis for an actual historical Jesus. Joseph totally ignores the messianic/apocalyptic aspects of the New Testament writings and erroneously asserts that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus. I will return to this issue later. For now, let us consider Joseph’s solar deity argument.

The Solar Cross & Sloppy Solar Symbolism

The first assertion made in Zeitgeist is that the cross is a solar symbol and not a representation of the instrument of Jesus’ execution. That’s true enough, as far as it goes, which isn’t very far. What Jesus was crucified on probably looked more like a capital “T,” the crossbeam to which Jesus’ wrists were nailed being hoisted to rest atop an already anchored upright post. It was then probably secured in place by a spike. The Christian cross probably represents a melding of this “T” shape with the solar cross as a bit of religious syncretism. This can be seen if one considers that many Christian crosses are shown enclosed by or intersecting a circle, as in the Celtic cross. The cross is also a symbol of the four cardinal directions and the four winds. However, the solar associations of the cross, while adding solar connotations to the Christ myth, do not militate against it also being a symbol of the Crucifixion.

Joseph next asserts that the gods Horus, Krishna, Mithra and Attys all paralleled Jesus. Again, there is some truth to this, but Joseph mingles so much falsehood with whatever truths he reveals as to give ample ammunition to evangelical Christians who might want to shoot holes in his thesis. First of all, he says that the Egyptian god Horus was adored by three kings, had twelve disciples and was crucified. He says much the same thing about Mithra, as well as noting that Krishna was born on December 25. Almost none of this is true.

When it comes to Egyptian sources of the Christ myth, Joseph seems to have conflated Horus with his father, Osiris. The Osiris/Horus myth, in much simplified terms, goes as follows: Set, the evil brother of the good Osiris, murders that god and cuts his body into 14 pieces. Isis, the wife of Osiris collects and reassembles the pieces, having to substitute a wooden phallus for that part of the dead god’s anatomy. She copulates with the dead god in the form of a bird, conceives Horus and gives birth to him in secret, raising him on an island in the Nile amidst the reeds. She also raises Osiris from the dead, although this very physical resurrection is in the underworld. When Horus comes of age he does battle with his uncle Set. Set tears out the eye of Horus, while Horus rips off Set’s genitals. Eventually, peace is made between the two, both are healed, and they divide the rule of the year by seasons of life and death.

The physical resurrection of Osiris, even though it is in the underworld, is a significant precursor to Jesus as a dying and rising god, as is the physical resurrection of Dionysus, after he is killed, dismembered and partially eaten by the Titans. Surprisingly, Joseph fails to mention this bit of classical mythology. Horus being born and nursed in the rushes of an island in the Nile is an important parallel to the infant Moses being found among the rushes. However, beyond the resurrection of Osiris, the main parallels between the Egyptian myth and the New Testament are iconic. Isis with the dead body of Osiris prefigures the imagery of the Pieta. More importantly, Christians co-opted the imagery of Isis and the infant Horus in the form of the Madonna and child. I have absolutely no idea where Joseph got the notion that Horus had 12 disciples or that he was ever crucified.

As to the god who is born on December 25 — this was not Krishna, but Mithra in his solar aspect as Sol Invictus (Latin for “Unconquered Sun”). The reason Mithra/Sol Invictus was born on December 25 was that in the Roman calendar of that day, that was the Winter Solstice, the 24-hour period having the fewest number of daylight hours. From that date the days get longer and the nights get shorter until the Summer Solstice. Owing to imperfections in the Roman or Julian calendar, the solstice gradually shifted to December 21, until corrections were made resulting in our present Gregorian calendar. Christianity seems to have deliberately co-opted the birthday of Mithra as a way of occupying a rival’s holiday, rather than this being the result of Jesus being a solar savior.

Joseph’s confusion continues when he tries to tie Isis into the Annunciation narrative of Luke. He says that an Annunciation scene from Luxor shows Isis being told by angelic beings she will bear Horus. Actually, the panels from Luxor depict the mother of Hatshepsut being told she will bear the divine child. Next, the god Amon-Ra consorts with Hatshepsut’s mother. Then the divine child (Hatshepsut) is adored by gods and mortals. This is probably the source of Luke’s Nativity. Mary is told by the angel Gabriel she will bear the divine child. The Holy Spirit overshadows her. Then angels and mortals (shepherds) adore Jesus. However, it has nothing to do with Isis. It was part of the standard Egyptian royal myth that each Pharaoh was engendered by Amon Ra, taking his father’s mortal form to have sexual relations with the Pharaoh’s mother. The reason Hatshepsut (ruled 1498–1483 BCE) had to emphasize her divine origins is that, as a female, she was assumed to have ordinary mortal origins. So there probably is an Egyptian origin to the Lucan Nativity, but it has nothing to do with Isis, Osiris or Horus.

Three Kings & Other Astrological Nonsense

Zeitgeist continues to find not only solar but astrological sources for the Christ myth. The star followed by the wise men is Sirius, in the constellation Canis Major, which lines up with three bright stars on Orion’s belt. These stars are often called the “three kings,” hence the three kings following the star in the Nativity story. Mary is a virgin because she represents the constellation Virgo, which is also referred to as the “House of Bread,” or, in Hebrew beth-lehem, or the town of Bethlehem, The death of Jesus by crucifixion represents the sun being in the Southern Cross, a constellation that in antiquity was visible from the Mediterranean. Thus, the sun was, at its lowest point in the sky (when it “died”) “crucified,” in that it was ensnared in the Southern Cross. Jesus rose from the dead at Easter because it was then, at the Vernal Equinox, that the sun conquered darkness. Jesus had 12 disciples because they represent the 12 signs of the Zodiac. His crown of thorns at the Crucifixion represents the rays of the sun emanating from his head.

This story, like most of Part I of Zeitgeist, is a pastiche of factoid, fiction and ingenious invention. It also betrays a certain naïveté on the part of Peter Joseph in regard to his knowledge of the Bible. This is obvious when he sees in the “Three Kings” of Orion’s belt pointing at Sirius, the source of the magi following the star in the Nativity story of Matthew. At this point, let me ask readers a question: Without looking at a Bible, tell me how many wise men or kings followed the star to Bethlehem. Most likely you answered “Three.” After all, we’ve all heard and sung the popular Christmas carol “We Three Kings of Orient Are.” So weren’t there three kings? Let’s look at the Bible, specifically at Matthew 2:1,2:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East and have come to worship him.”
Two things are readily apparent from this passage. First, those who saw the star are wise men, not kings. In the original Greek of the New Testament, what is translated as “wise men” is magi, that is, Zoroastrian holy men. The Greek word magos is the source of our words mage, magic and magician. Second, Matthew nowhere says how many magi came to Jerusalem. So where did we ever get the idea there were three of them? Also, if they were actually following a star, it would have led them directly to Bethlehem. The star doesn’t actually lead the magi until they have been told by Herod’s scribes to go to Bethlehem. Only then does the following happen (Mt. 2:9–11):

When they had heard the king they went on their way, and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy; and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.
This is odd. One wonders why the star didn’t just lead the magi to Bethlehem right off. This has led many to speculate that the “star” wasn’t an actual star, but perhaps a conjunction of astrologically significant planets in one constellation or another. It would be tedious to go into them here. Suffice it to say that Joseph’s “three kings” in the belt of Orion bear no relation to the actual myth in Matthew’s account of the Nativity. The only reason conventions of art and caroling gave us three wise men (not kings) is that the magi give Jesus three gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh.

It is in these three gifts, along with the eastern origin of the magi, that we see the key to the actual myth in Matthew’s Nativity, which is political. Throughout the Mathean Nativity account, the gospel’s author takes great pains to find fulfilled prophecies showing Jesus to be the messiah of the Davidic line of kings. He is born in Bethlehem because that was David’s home town, and Jesus must be born there to fulfill the prophecy in Micah 5:2, which the chief priests and scribes quote to Herod when the magi ask where the baby is that is born to be king of the Jews (Mt. 2:5, 6):

They [the priests and scribes] told him [Herod], “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:

‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means the least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you will come a ruler
who will govern my people Israel’”
So Bethlehem’s mythic associations have to do with Davidic kingship, not astrology. The three gifts also reflect Davidic kingship, since the Queen of Sheba gave King Solomon rich and kingly gifts (1 Kings 10:10). These included a great quantity of gold and, by implication, since Sheba, or Saba was located in modern Yemen, at the southern end of the Red Sea, frankincense and myrrh. Sheba, or Saba, in Yemen is at the southern end, the point of origin of an ancient caravan route that stretched from Yemen to Damascus called the “Incense Route,” since what was traded from the southern end of the Red Sea were two forms of incense, frankincense and myrrh. Thus, the infant Jesus received from the magi the same gifts given to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba.

Other astrological fantasies in Zeitgeist regarding the Christ myth are that Mary is a virgin because she personifies the constellation Virgo, that the Crucifixion represents the sun in the constellation of the Southern Cross, that Easter is related to the sun’s triumph over darkness at or shortly following the Vernal Equinox, that Jesus’ 12 disciples represent the signs of the Zodiac, and that his crown of thorns represents solar rays emanating from his head. The astrological associations of all of these elements are tenuous at best. Certainly, the virgin birth and the elevation of the Virgin Mary in the Gospel of Luke reflects pagan influences on the Christ myth, which can be seen in the Lucan Nativity and which sharply contrast to the messianic/Davidic kingship motifs of Matthew. As previously noted. Luke’s Nativity seems to be based on Egyptian panels from Luxor dating to the 18th dynasty and the reign of Queen Hatshepsut. So Mary could relate to the constellation Virgo, but also took on the iconography of Isis

As to the sighting of Easter near the time of the Vernal Equinox, we must remember that the Passion is staged during Passover. There is a complex layering here that is lost if we simply relegate Easter to a celebration of the Vernal Equinox.

The Christ myth relates not only to previous dying and rising gods, like Osiris and Dionysus, but as well to Jewish messianic, apocalyptic and historical myths. Thus, situating Easter in the Passover season probably relates more to messianic myth than to the sun. Passover itself was probably originally a festival of first fruits, that is, a seasonal, agricultural festival relating to rebirth. However, Jewish seasonal festivals relating to a cyclic view of time were recast in messianic, apocalyptic terms as historical and related to a linear concept of time. In the case of Jewish belief, I believe it’s safe to say that the linear, historical view effectively eclipsed the original seasonal festival. Since the Christian Passion and Resurrection narratives reintroduce a dying and rising god meme into the holiday, the layering of Easter becomes far more complex. Easter blends apocalyptic messianism, emphasizing Christ’s death and resurrection as the critical turning point in God’s war with Satan, and portraying Jesus as the culmination of Israel’s hopes and dreams, with the dying and rising god motif, and the promise to Christians that they, too, would transcend death. It must also be remembered that the cult of Isis and Osiris, which spread through the Roman Empire about a century before the time of Jesus, was not entirely the same as the millennia old Egyptian fertility cult it had originally been. Rather, it was, in all probability, Hellenized and showed some of the refinements of Greek philosophy. This was, likewise, probably the case with the much younger cult of Dionysus, another dying and rising god.

Jesus having 12 disciples also relates more to Jewish messianism than to astrology. The 12 disciples relate to the 12 tribes of Israel, which, though they no longer existed as political entities, were important genealogically to the extent that Paul could confidently claim to be of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1). Actually, there were 13 tribes, 12 plus the priestly tribe of Levites. Each tribe originally supported the Levitical priesthood and maintained the central shrine for one month a year. The division of the tribes worshipping Yahweh into 12 divisions may well reflect influences of what was originally a lunar cult, but such influences had been subsumed by the apocalyptic, messianic monotheism of post-exilic Judaism well before the time of Christ. Had the 12 disciples represented the signs of the Zodiac, as Joseph asserts, then we would expect to find the disciples individually given specific zodiacal characteristics in the canonical gospels. Instead, most of the disciples are little more than names and lack any character whatsoever.

Jesus’ crown of thorns, along with most of the specific details of the Passion — his being clothed in a purple robe and given a reed as a scepter, the mocking and scourging by the Roman troops, even his being put to death — were probably elements of the Zagmuku Festival, which the Jews brought back with them from Babylon after their captivity there (587–538 BCE). Elements of this festival are to be found in the entirely fictional Book of Esther and the celebration of the Jewish holiday of Purim. This, by the way, is not to say that Jesus’ crucifixion was not a real, historical event, merely that its details were heavily fictionalized in the process of dramatization and storytelling.

It is the historiscity of Jesus that will tell us whether the Crucifixion was real or merely symbolic of the sun descending into the constellation of the Southern Cross. I will deal with that subject later.

The End of the Age

Zeitgeist continues its assertion of the astrological basis of Christianity and even of the Jewish Scriptures with the assertion that both Moses and Jesus based their words and actions on a belief in astrological ages of roughly 2,000 plus years dominated by a specific sign of the Zodiac. According to this scheme the Age of Taurus (the Bull) was ending or had ended when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and was being superceded by the Age of Aries (the Ram). This age was, in turn, superceded by the Age of Pisces, in which we live, but which is now winding down. It will soon be followed by the Age of Aquarius, hence the song by the same name from the musical Hair. Moses, Peter Joseph says, condemned worshipping the golden bull calf because it was a throwback to an earlier age. The blowing of the shofar, specifically a ram’s horn, and other symbols indicate that Judaism came, initially, out of the Age of Aries. Since Christianity came into being at the beginning of the Age of Pisces, fish symbolism is particularly common in the New Testament. Thus Jesus tells the fishermen he recruits (Mark 1:17), “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Thus he feeds the multitude with loaves and fishes, and thus the fish is a Christian symbol. There are also, according to Joseph, references in the Christian Scriptures to the coming Aquarian Age. Jesus tells his disciples to follow a man bearing a jar of water (i.e. Aquarius, the water bearer) in Luke 22:10:

He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him into the house which he enters, and tell the householder, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?’”
Finally, Jesus tells his disciples (Mt. 28:20) referring to the Age of Pisces and its transition into the Age of Aquarius, “I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

So, was the fish imagery in the New Testament a reference to the Age of Pisces? When Jesus spoke of the “end of the age,” was he referring to the transition from the Piscean to Aquarian age some 2,000 plus years into the future? The answer to all these questions is, “No.”

Consider the antagonism against bull imagery implicit in Moses condemning the people’s worship of the golden calf. This Yahwistic prejudice seems to have evaporated by that time of the building of Solomon’s Temple, as can be seen in this description of the “molten sea,” a huge vessel containing water that was one of the principle furnishings of the Temple (1 Kings 7:25): “It stood upon twelve oxen, three facing nth, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east; the sea was set upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.” Oxen also decorate the panels of ten stands made of bronze, along with lions and cherubim (1 Kings. 7:28). Yet, for all the rich imagery of the interior of Solomon’s Temple, it is utterly devoid of any image of rams. Thus, we must assume that the story of the golden calf in Exodus refers, as it would seem, to idolatry.

Fish certainly are common images in the New Testament. Yet so are olive trees, fig trees, sheaves of grain, and, particularly, sheep and lambs. In fact, lambs and lost sheep probably figure more prominently in the New Testament than do fish. Does this mean that Jesus actually wanted to turn the clock back to the previous Age of Aries? Joseph would probably counter such an objection by pointing to the Christian fish symbol. Doesn’t this point to Christianity as the faith of the Piscean Age? The Christian fish symbol has been interpreted as referring back to the “fishers of men” phrase from Mark 1:17 and has also been seen as a vaginal symbol lying on its side. However, it appears most likely that the Greek word for fish, ichthys, was an acronym for (in Greek) Iasos Christos Theos Yios Soter, or “Jesus Christ, son of God, savior.”

The assertion in Zeitgeist that when Jesus tells his disciples in Mt. 28:20 he will be with them until the end of the age, he is referring to a time roughly 2,000 years into the future is absurd considering the apocalyptic outlook of early Christianity. Consider what Jesus has to say in Mark 8: 38–9:1:

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” And he said to them, “Truly I ay to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”
Despite the efforts of Christian apologists to rationalize this as something other than a prediction of the end of the world in Jesus’ own generation, there is little else to which it could refer. The parallel verses in Matthew even throw in the Last Judgment (Mt. 16: 27, 28):

For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not tastes death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Though there are no parallel verses to this in the Gospel of John, it also proclaims the imminent end of the world (John. 5: 28, 29):

Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his [Jesus’] voice and come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.
Paul also proclaimed the end of the world in his generation in this passage from 1 Thessalonians (1 Thess. 4: 15-17):

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we, who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep . For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.
These are but a few of the apocalyptic references salted throughout the New Testament. However, lest anyone doubt that early Christians believed the world would end in their generation, consider what John of Patmos says at the opening of Revelation, that vivid and detailed description of the end of days (Rev. 1:1, 2, emphasis added):

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants [I]what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
“What must soon take place’” cannot refer to the end of the Piscean Age some 2,000 years into the future any more than it can refer to a series of events triggered by Russia invading Israel in 1988.

History vs. Myth

Again mixing facts with sloppy assumptions, Part I of Zeitgeist concludes with an assault on the historicity of Jesus, claming that, outside the New Testament, there is no indication that Jesus ever existed. Joseph correctly points out that the biblical flood myth has its origins in material antedating the earliest sources of the Hebrew Scriptures. He specifically cites the Epic of Gilgamesh. However, he could just as well have cited the Sumerian flood hero Zuisudra, whose account greatly antedates the flood account in Gilgamesh.

Was there a real Jesus? While the historical evidence is meager, it does exist. In his Antiquities of the Jews, book 20, chapter 9, item 1, referring to the execution of James, Josephus refers to him as the brother of “Jesus, who was called the Christ.” It is quite plain that Josephus didn’t see Jesus as the Christ (Christos, the Greek word meaning “anointed”), he merely recorded that James’ brother was the Jesus who had been called or was alleged to be the Christ.

Beyond this scrap, valuable though it is, we can imply the existence of a historical Jesus from the criteria of embarrassment and difficulty. The criterion of embarrassment says that people do not make up embarrassing details about someone they wish to revere. So, if they say such things about the person, they are probably true. Now let’s apply this to what the Roman historian Tacitus had to say about Jesus early in the second century. Concerning rumors that had spread that Nero had deliberately set fire to the city of Rome, Tacitus says (The Annals of Imperial Rome, Book 1, Chapter 15):

To suppress this rumor, Nero fabricated scapegoats — and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capitol.
That Tacitus is obviously a hostile witness makes it much more likely that he accepted Jesus as a real person. Had he reason to suspect he was nothing more than a fabrication, Tacitus would certainly have said so. That author’s claim that Jesus had been executed by Pontius Pilate could only have come from one of two possible sources: Either Tacitus knew this to be true from extant imperial records or he was repeating what Christians themselves had said of Jesus. Were Jesus a mythical character they had invented, they certainly wouldn’t have gone out of their way to invent his being a criminal who had been executed.

In like manner, people do not go out of their way to invent difficulties for a character they have invented. It is clear from the Nativity narratives of the gospels of Matthew and Luke that they were faced with having to explain why Jesus grew up in Galilee if he was born in Bethlehem. Both gospels had to invent rather convoluted means to get Jesus born in Bethlehem in accordance with the messianic prophecy in Micah 5:2, then get him moved to Nazareth. Clearly they were stuck with a real person known to have come from Galilee, when he should have come from Bethlehem. Had they been making Jesus up out of whole cloth, they would simply have said he came from Bethlehem: end of story, no complications. So the evidence for Jesus as a real, historical personage, though meager, is solid.

A Roman Plot?

Considering that Part II of Zeitgeist asserts that the destruction of the World Trade Center was a conspiracy on the part of the powers that be, and that Part III is an attack on the Federal Reserve Board and income tax as unconstitutional plots devised by hidden powers bent on reducing all of us to poverty, one might wonder why Peter Joseph even bothered to open his film with an attack on Jesus and Christianity. Summing up at the end of Part I, Joseph asserts that Christianity was, in fact, developed by the Romans as a means of social control. He cites the Council of Nicaea in 325 as the beginning of this social control. So this is the connection between Part I and the rest of the film: Everything you’ve ever believed to be true is all a pack of lies foisted on you by the secret manipulators who really run things. They faked the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon to manipulate us into a war. They are undermining our financial and other freedoms through manipulation of our money and — guess what?! — they’ve been at it since the creation of Christianity, back in the time of the Roman Empire!
Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids.

Discussion

For additional discussion of Zeitgeist’s religious claims see: www.runboard.com/biblicalprophesyandmythology.f22.t91 (http://www.runboard.com/biblicalprophesyandmythology.f22.t91)
</B>

[Rusty Shackleford]

"Politics are bad!"

"Anything that has to do with money is evil!"

"Communists are into great leaders, thats what Jacques Fresco said!"

Please for the sake of humanity dont fall for it!; the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project are the products of mental masturbation and nothing more. It is a dead end.


As for the religion thing, it was very compelling for me when i saw it a few years ago. I am not a theologian or a historian on that subject so i cant really comment on the validity of the argument made in the movie.

[Rocky Rococo]

To be more direct about the views depicted in the first video on how thousands of religions before Christianity shared common repetitive traits, I haven't ever heard it thoroughly debunked.

And you won't hear it debunked, because it's true. One of the truly great works of scholarship in the western tradition was James Frazer's massive study of paganism/animist/nature religions of the world, past and present, The Golden Bough. The great impact of the book is when he illustrates the commonalities in the pagan religious practices separated by thousands of miles and/or thousands of years.

There's a very interesting unspoken subtext to the book as well. While he was careful to pay lip service to Christianity as somehow different/better, necessary I imagine given the times (early 20th century) he was writing, it is plainly obvious that one of his prime motives in writing the book is to illustrate in great detail how the central Christian myths and symbols fit neatly and completely within the preexisting pagan myth structures.

[DeBon]

"Politics are bad!"

"Anything that has to do with money is evil!"

"Communists are into great leaders, thats what Jacques Fresco said!"

Please for the sake of humanity dont fall for it!; the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project are the products of mental masturbation and nothing more. It is a dead end.


As for the religion thing, it was very compelling for me when i saw it a few years ago. I am not a theologian or a historian on that subject so i cant really comment on the validity of the argument made in the movie.

How is it a dead end? How is it mental masturbation? That's like saying any idea comparing Communism and Marxism or any movement for social progress some form of self pleasure, when it's in fact a movement aimed at the betterment of out species. There's nothing to fall for, this isn't some plot by some secret group of men to rule the world.

[Geiseric]

It won't be capitalists, it'll just be REALLY smart people running things, who won't use their newfound power to be self serving at all. Sounds like a leftist version of ayn randism.

[Misanthrope]

It does steer people to the left I have to admit. It's a good thought provoking film..

[DeBon]

Another idea thrown around is to teach people to think more logically and be less opinionated, to approach problems in a scientific and factual manner.

Just sayin'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=r7BRvKjJyEo

[Boothe]

I enjoyed the documentary, however I had problems with the film's lack of sources. It seemed like at times, they were just throwing conspiracy theory garbage all over the place. Now it seems that the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project have split off due to some ideological differences. It really is a shame, there seemed to be some hope in the movement.

[Rusty Shackleford]

How is it a dead end? How is it mental masturbation? That's like saying any idea comparing Communism and Marxism or any movement for social progress some form of self pleasure, when it's in fact a movement aimed at the betterment of out species. There's nothing to fall for, this isn't some plot by some secret group of men to rule the world.


Cool graphics and romantic language alone arent going to change anything. And a movement that doesnt organize people for anything but conferences and teleconferences isnt going to achieve anything.

Robert Owen have a view that would better the human species but it was obviously utopian. Carnegie thought he would better humanity by being a philanthropist before he died, turns out he was wrong.

As far as i know, ideological leadership of the movement and project are not positions to be voted on, and subject to change at a whim.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Jacque Fresco is a bigger critique of religion than Marx. And how can you say that? The Venus Project addresses more than the class struggle of the developed world, it addresses this the 'class struggle', social problems, and socioeconomics, with a modern scientific approach.
You know the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist movement aren't affiliated anymore right? How does the VP/Zeitgeist movement address the class struggle? They don't, and their solution to the class struggle is to build an amusement park to spread the idea, hardly a way to further the class struggle. They're utopians, they don't really address any problems at all, just say that there will be no problems if we accept their society and implement it. Plus their economic analysis sucks. Begins with the Fed/banks and then tells us money ruins everything, great job, such a great analysis! Of course, like others have already said, it totally ignores the class struggle for they only ever seem to want to talk about the printing and distributing of money. The only time they talk about production the only thing they say is our shit is made cheap so that it can break sooner so we can buy a new one.

Marx's analysis > Zeitgeist analysis 100%.

[DeBon]

You know the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist movement aren't affiliated anymore right? How does the VP/Zeitgeist movement address the class struggle? They don't, and their solution to the class struggle is to build an amusement park to spread the idea, hardly a way to further the class struggle. They're utopians, they don't really address any problems at all, just say that there will be no problems if we accept their society and implement it. Plus their economic analysis sucks. Begins with the Fed/banks and then tells us money ruins everything, great job, such a great analysis! Of course, like others have already said, it totally ignores the class struggle for they only ever seem to want to talk about the printing and distributing of money. The only time they talk about production the only thing they say is our shit is made cheap so that it can break sooner so we can buy a new one.

Marx's analysis > Zeitgeist analysis 100%.

Yes I know that, but the Zeitgeist movement is like the activist arm for a resourced based economy.

It's not an amusement park. Jacque Fresco's reason for building his research facility was to show people what things could be like. The man distributed several revolutionary ideas into the system and that's how he funded his research, you should read his resume.

It's been said dozens of times by Jacque, Peter, and Roxanne, it's not utopia, it's just a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Why analyze the economics of a clearly fucked up system? How about we stop writing papers about how messed up the system is and try to change it for the best.

Not true. Technology would be used to in the most efficient manner, looks up a thing called a 3D printer, or a crane. The idea is that building a house out of wood and bricks, something in practice for centuries, is obsolete. Many of the structures that Jacque Fresco constructed in the Venus Project research facility have been extremely low maintenance and extremely durable, trees have fallen on some of his buildings and simply bounced off. It's not all about buildings though, it's pretty much every aspect of production and consumption in our lives.

Think of it like this, if one person joins the Communist party, they're one person stronger. If the Communist party were to be the dominant party, then they would have the ability to implement their policies into practice. That one person adds up to a mass of people. But if that one person decided not to join the party and would rather criticize the party for being too utopian and adressing the issues incorrectly, they're just that much weaker.

[Decommissioner]

I dont get it, I watched most of the third zeitgeist movie. By the end they started talking smack on communism and marxism. I see nothing new in the theories and strategy proposed in the zeitgeist documentaries, everything they cover is encompassed entirely within the framework of a communist system.

The only thing that seems to seperate them is their desire to dictate how future society should be run, rather than leaving the decisions to be democratically decided amongst the people post-revolution.

[DeBon]

I dont get it, I watched most of the third zeitgeist movie. By the end they started talking smack on communism and marxism. I see nothing new in the theories and strategy proposed in the zeitgeist documentaries, everything they cover is encompassed entirely within the framework of a communist system.

The only thing that seems to seperate them is their desire to dictate how future society should be run, rather than leaving the decisions to be democratically decided amongst the people post-revolution.

The strategy of education the masses is shared with both Communist and ZM ideas, how ever the ZM is not advocating a violent approach.

True, the functions of society would be made differently. Not too much differently though. And if you think about it, you don't have to worry about some bourgeoisie politician wanting to milk people of money, because there would be no class of politicians. Ask any politician you know 'how do you plan to increase food production without exhausting the soil?' they won't know. Try it. They won't. Ask someone who knows a thing or two about hydroponics and aquaculture the same questions and they'll give you an answer. That's the problem with traditional politics, it's all in laws and money distribution, not true problem solving. You want scientists, critical thinkers, and problem solvers to be offering the solutions, not some opinionated bastard with a corrupt agenda.

[Martin Blank]

We have to deal with Zeitgeisters in the #Occupy movement. I find them to be the penultimate petty-bourgeois socialists, though they don't call themselves "socialist". Their idea of a "resource-based economy" is an attempt to shoehorn elements of the communist mode of production into a petty-bourgeois system of so-called "experts" making all the decisions. It's similar to more mainstream technocracy, in this sense. I find nothing revolutionary in it at all -- at least, nothing that hasn't already been said or pointed out in an overall revolutionary viewpoint.

[Kenco Smooth]

Generally the very worst aspects of technocracy are lurking right beneath any progressive rhetoric. But the idea that scientists and technicians may value their contributions more than others enough to unfairly benefit themselves/don't appreciate risks and hazards of their work is heresy to a movement built upon technophiles.

And the 'movement' is practically a paradigm of a Utopian system. That action beyond eduction is not needed till they hit some critical mass of popular support and then things will just sort of change.



True, the functions of society would be made differently. Not too much differently though. And if you think about it, you don't have to worry about some bourgeoisie politician wanting to milk people of money, because there would be no class of politicians. Ask any politician you know 'how do you plan to increase food production without exhausting the soil?' they won't know. Try it. They won't. Ask someone who knows a thing or two about hydroponics and aquaculture the same questions and they'll give you an answer. That's the problem with traditional politics, it's all in laws and money distribution, not true problem solving. You want scientists, critical thinkers, and problem solvers to be offering the solutions, not some opinionated bastard with a corrupt agenda.

So the opinions of scientists and 'critical thinkers' would be the final court of appeal for valid opinions in the land?

Also this is a seriously confused criticism. It's not a politicians job to cultivate the soil. It's his job to represent voters typically. Whatever criticisms bourgeois politics may be open to the fact that the representatives within it aren't experts in particular scientific fields is not a strong one.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It's not an amusement park. Jacque Fresco's reason for building his research facility was to show people what things could be like. The man distributed several revolutionary ideas into the system and that's how he funded his research, you should read his resume.
Well they were calling step 3 of the plan a theme park I remember, but I go back to the site now and they're calling it a "research city". Anyways he may have engineered some "revolutionary ideas into the system" but that doesn't mean he can engineer a society.

It's been said dozens of times by Jacque, Peter, and Roxanne, it's not utopia, it's just a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
Ohhhhh, well they said they're not utopians so that clears everything up :rolleyes:

Why analyze the economics of a clearly fucked up system? How about we stop writing papers about how messed up the system is and try to change it for the best.I don't know, why did they analyze the economics of a clearly fucked up system(And do a shitty job at it)? Maybe that's why they have no concept of the class struggle at all, shitty economic analysis from a shitty(bourgeois) perspective. Analyzing capitalism showed us that their was going to be the development of a global proletariat. A global proletariat that would have to seize upon the MOP and implement socialism. You have to understand capitalism to know the next step forward, you have to understand capitalism if you want to show people that it is horrible and needs to be replaced, etc. The fact that you have a picture of Marx in your avatar and asked that question is very sad.


Not true. Technology would be used to in the most efficient manner, looks up a thing called a 3D printer, or a crane. The idea is that building a house out of wood and bricks, something in practice for centuries, is obsolete. Many of the structures that Jacque Fresco constructed in the Venus Project research facility have been extremely low maintenance and extremely durable, trees have fallen on some of his buildings and simply bounced off. It's not all about buildings though, it's pretty much every aspect of production and consumption in our lives.What's not true? I don't get why this paragraph was necessary at all.


Think of it like this, if one person joins the Communist party, they're one person stronger. If the Communist party were to be the dominant party, then they would have the ability to implement their policies into practice. That one person adds up to a mass of people. But if that one person decided not to join the party and would rather criticize the party for being too utopian and adressing the issues incorrectly, they're just that much weaker.
Why should I join a communist party if it's too utopian and doesn't address issues correctly? Why should I join a movement that I don't agree with? To make me stronger? Or I could apply the same exact logic of me being stronger joining a party to joining a party that I actually agree with. Yeah that one makes a lot more sense.


True, the functions of society would be made differently. Not too much differently though. And if you think about it, you don't have to worry about some bourgeoisie politician wanting to milk people of money, because there would be no class of politicians. Ask any politician you know 'how do you plan to increase food production without exhausting the soil?' they won't know. Try it. They won't. Ask someone who knows a thing or two about hydroponics and aquaculture the same questions and they'll give you an answer. That's the problem with traditional politics, it's all in laws and money distribution, not true problem solving. You want scientists, critical thinkers, and problem solvers to be offering the solutions, not some opinionated bastard with a corrupt agenda. So we'll be ruled by scientists and critical thinkers? Isn't that just a rip-off of Plato's idea of philosopher kings ruling society?

[Zealot]

Well I remember watching the first movie and I'll say this: a lot of what Peter Joseph said about religion was untrue. Religion deserves harsh criticism but it seems to me that he chose instead to use suspect theories and spurious sources to prove a point.

It's a developing movement and I have no idea whether Peter Joesph still believes some of the things he said in the first Zeitgeist, but they still seem to attract conspiracy douchebags that seem more concerned about 9/11 than economics. On top of that, it's pretty fucking utopian, it has no practical application or strategy to achieve revolution. Basically, it's not even a paper tiger at this stage.

[DeBon]

Well they were calling step 3 of the plan a theme park I remember, but I go back to the site now and they're calling it a "research city". Anyways he may have engineered some "revolutionary ideas into the system" but that doesn't mean he can engineer a society.

It was never changed.
edit:
No, he may not be able to engineer a society, but he has changed people. He's dissolved small white council organizations, he's changed members of the KKK. And he doesn't share many of his modern ideas because he fears people will patent them and steal them.





Ohhhhh, well they said they're not utopians so that clears everything up :rolleyes:
Try explaining the concept of every worker owning their means of production to a mass of people. Some people just won't get how that's somehow superior to what they have now, some people who don't understand it would go as far to say that's too utopian, or perfect. It's just a lot better than what we have now.



I don't know, why did they analyze the economics of a clearly fucked up system(And do a shitty job at it)? Maybe that's why they have no concept of the class struggle at all, shitty economic analysis from a shitty(bourgeois) perspective. Analyzing capitalism showed us that their was going to be the development of a global proletariat. A global proletariat that would have to seize upon the MOP and implement socialism. You have to understand capitalism to know the next step forward, you have to understand capitalism if you want to show people that it is horrible and needs to be replaced, etc. The fact that you have a picture of Marx in your avatar and asked that question is very sad.
They have no concept of class struggle, and this is what makes their movement useless? That's like saying any attempt at positive social change that didn't have a concept of class struggle was wrong, even though they aimed for a better world, because they lacked your concept of class struggle.

So a Bourgeois perspective attacks the state and large corporations? They state numerous times that the state and large corporations are the problem. Now you're just throwing out nonsense.

They do address class struggle, they just don't use the term class struggle.


What's not true? I don't get why this paragraph was necessary at all.
You said:

The only time they talk about production the only thing they say is our shit is made cheap so that it can break sooner so we can buy a new one.



Why should I join a communist party if it's too utopian and doesn't address issues correctly? Why should I join a movement that I don't agree with? To make me stronger? Or I could apply the same exact logic of me being stronger joining a party to joining a party that I actually agree with. Yeah that one makes a lot more sense.

No, you misunderstood the point of my analogy. If you get a mass of people to have a change in values and demand a resource based economy, it's a lot more likely to happen than if a small number of people demand it. I don't even know how you could misinterpret that,


So we'll be ruled by scientists and critical thinkers? Isn't that just a rip-off of Plato's idea of philosopher kings ruling society?

No.. you're reading what I said and interpreting it the way you want so I sound like some evil anti-democratic bourgeois bastard. Reread what I said and notice how I said solutions are suggested and decided on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHiy4EuUD2U

[DeBon]

We have to deal with Zeitgeisters in the #Occupy movement. I find them to be the penultimate petty-bourgeois socialists, though they don't call themselves "socialist". Their idea of a "resource-based economy" is an attempt to shoehorn elements of the communist mode of production into a petty-bourgeois system of so-called "experts" making all the decisions. It's similar to more mainstream technocracy, in this sense. I find nothing revolutionary in it at all -- at least, nothing that hasn't already been said or pointed out in an overall revolutionary viewpoint.

Poor you, having to deal with them. :rolleyes:

You have a very broad generalization of 'Zeitgeisters'. http://www.facebook.com/TheZeitgeistMovement/posts/255191837863875
Consider reading through the comments of this post.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

No, he may not be able to engineer a society, but he has changed people. He's dissolved small white council organizations, he's changed members of the KKK.
So? Those are all activities that take place at the church my sister goes to. There are government programs for that shit. I've changed the opinion of my ex-racist cousin. I don't see what this proves at all.



Try explaining the concept of every worker owning their means of production to a mass of people. Some people just won't get how that's somehow superior to what they have now, some people who don't understand it would go as far to say that's too utopian, or perfect. It's just a lot better than what we have now.
I don't see what this has to do with the ZM being utopian. Really your response so far makes no sense at all.


They have no concept of class struggle, and this is what makes their movement useless? That's like saying any attempt at positive social change that didn't have a concept of class struggle was wrong, even though they aimed for a better world, because they lacked your concept of class struggle.
Of course it will spell the damnation of their movement if they don't recognize it, same with any movement that seeks to completely change society as the ZM does.


So a Bourgeois perspective attacks the state and large corporations? They state numerous times that the state and large corporations are the problem. Now you're just throwing out nonsense.The petite-bourgeois do this all the time, where have you been?


They do address class struggle, they just don't use the term class struggle.
Okay what's their analysis of the class struggle, I want to see it.


You said:
And you showed exactly what I was talking about which is why I'm confused as to why you said what I said was untrue.


No, you misunderstood the point of my analogy. If you get a mass of people to have a change in values and demand a resource based economy, it's a lot more likely to happen than if a small number of people demand it. I don't even know how you could misinterpret thatSo your point was that there is strength in numbers? So what, I don't get what you're trying to prove in almost anything you say. No shit, there is strength in numbers but what does it matter if it's a utopian movement? If we could get a mass of people to have a change in values and demand peace in the world it will happen right? If we could get a mass of people to have a change in values and demand the end of poverty it will just happen right?




No.. you're reading what I said and interpreting it the way you want so I sound like some evil anti-democratic bourgeois bastard. Reread what I said and notice how I said solutions are suggested and decided on.Sorry if you're not making things very clear with what you're saying. Scientists and critical thinkers will "offer solutions" to whom? From what I gather they don't believe in a democratic method whatsoever, so either I'm totally wrong about what they believe or you're totally making shit up for them to make them look better.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHiy4EuUD2U
Relevancy? And I think this shows part of the problem with this guy. It's not our job to plan every intricacy of a future society, that's the job we leave to the utopians...

[DeBon]

So? Those are all activities that take place at the church my sister goes to. There are government programs for that shit. I've changed the opinion of my ex-racist cousin. I don't see what this proves at all.

I just don't feel like getting into the psuedo-science 'nature vs nurture' and 'people become a certain way because of their environment'


I
don't see what this has to do with the ZM being utopian. Really your response so far makes no sense at all.

It's not utopian, nothing can or ever will be utopian. There.


Of course it will spell the damnation of their movement if they don't recognize it, same with any movement that seeks to completely change society as the ZM does.

I want to know how someone acknowledges class struggle. Just simply tell me how you think someone would go about recognizing it.


The petite-bourgeois do this all the time, where have you been?
It just doesn't make sense to say "shitty economic analysis from a shitty(bourgeois) perspective" As if an economic analysis pointing out how fucked up things are that is (in your opinion) shitty is some how worse because of the publisher's class?


And you showed exactly what I was talking about which is why I'm confused as to why you said what I said was untrue.
Alright, so this is what you said:

The only time they talk about production the only thing they say is our shit is made cheap so that it can break sooner so we can buy a new one.
You said the only thing they cover over production was how things break fast and are made shitty, or what ever, and I was simply telling you that's not true, or one could say untrue. What is so fucking hard to get about that? Is there something more you're looking for? They tell you you're shit is made cheap and they want more durable materials to be used so your shit lasts longer because we don't have an unlimited amount of resources!!!!!! :crying:


So your point was that there is strength in numbers? So what, I don't get what you're trying to prove in almost anything you say. No shit, there is strength in numbers but what does it matter if it's a utopian movement? If we could get a mass of people to have a change in values and demand peace in the world it will happen right? If we could get a mass of people to have a change in values and demand the end of poverty it will just happen right?

You say it's utopian, so I'm guessing you think it's impossible or will never happen.
I'm simply saying if enough people learn about it, it's pretty damn possible.
And yes, if you had a good plan or strategy that was implemented it very well could. Could. It could.


Sorry if you're not making things very clear with what you're saying. Scientists and critical thinkers will "offer solutions" to whom? From what I gather they don't believe in a democratic method whatsoever, so either I'm totally wrong about what they believe or you're totally making shit up for them to make them look better.

Of course I'm totally making shit up to make them look better.
edit: I'll just leave this here I guess..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qlgzTlAvOo&feature=related
Maybe your idea of democracy is slightly different.


Relevancy? And I think this shows part of the problem with this guy. It's not our job to plan every intricacy of a future society, that's the job we leave to the utopians...

Why not plan things? Who says it's not our job? If you want something done, like feeding a city of people, you want to make sure we have a plan to do so. Do you honestly think things like feeding people, clothing people, housing people, aren't planned in some way or another? Our planet doesn't have an unlimited amount of resources, and the 'shitty analysis about production' says things are made to not last very long. Does that sound very sustainable to you?

[Belleraphone]

Can someone explain to me what this whole movement in general is? I know it's vaguely leftist but I can't really seem to understand what it's about.

[DeBon]

Can someone explain to me what this whole movement in general is? I know it's vaguely leftist but I can't really seem to understand what it's about.


The Zeitgeist Movement is a weak activist arm for a resource based economy. Basically, the aim is to spread the idea of a RBE to everyone in hopes of raising awareness and gaining support. The mind behind the Zeitgeist Movement is Peter Joseph. He used to associate with the Venus Project, but Peter Joseph basically wanted to take credit for Jacque Fresco's lifetime of hard work for pure leadership reasons. That's why they split.

The Venus Project is a blueprint, or a plan based on highest efficiency and extremely innovative thinking, of how a resource based economy would work, and how cities can be designed to be at efficient and low-maintenance as possible, and it's led by 92 year old Jacque Fresco who's put a lifetime of research into the VP.

(just thought it would be nice to answer your questions and differentiate the ZM and the VP)

[Zealot]

It's nice to dream of a resource based economy and have everything planned out down to the last fucking tile but the movement seems to lack any reasonable strategy for getting there. They understand the faults of capitalism but instead of developing tactics for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie what do they do? Draw pictures of houses. It's lame and it's a lame tactic. I mean he's creative, a good architect, which is half the reason this movement is so utopian because he's an architect first and foremost. But there is no "Party" to move this thing forward and there won't be one (any time soon) because the movement doesn't want to involve itself in politics. All they have is a bunch of movies, a bunch of designs and a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Jaque split with TZM because of his ego, he hates the fact that Peter Joseph is getting more attention even though PJ always says hes working on behalf of Fresco. Roxxanne is probably more worried about who will head the movement after Jaque dies and she knows who it's going to be. Jaque also got mad that Peter didn't go out to the Venus Project and learn how to raise children, lulz. 1:08

84lZd0dGJNY

It's unfortunate really, because far from getting the credit he wants Jaque might end up being forgotten in history since it now has no active arm. Peter Joseph will move forward with his batshit ideas and has even said that he'll promote a resource based economy under a different name than "The Venus Project".

[NormalG]

The ego that keeps us isolated

[safeduck]

No expert, but alot of the facts put forward in that part of the movie are wrong.

[Martin Blank]

Poor you, having to deal with them. :rolleyes:

You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying we had problems with them being involved here. Quite the contrary! Actually, the guy who's the chapter president here was at my house today helping to fix up a photocopier we're letting the Occupy group here use to print leaflets and such. We get along pretty well, but I think a lot of that is because he's also working class.


You have a very broad generalization of 'Zeitgeisters'. http://www.facebook.com/TheZeitgeistMovement/posts/255191837863875
Consider reading through the comments of this post.

Actually, I have a political characterization of the political program of the Zeitgeist movement, which is what I wrote about. I understand that many individual members and supporters of TZM see themselves as revolutionaries and favor radical- and even revolutionary-democratic alternatives. We've had a great time working with them in Occupy and discussing RBE vs. communism.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It's not utopian, nothing can or ever will be utopian. There.
:rolleyes: What is the difference between Fresco's plan and the utopian socialist Owen's plan? Marx wrote about Fresco years ago in a famous book, he said:

"Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action; historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones; and the gradual, spontaneous class organisation of the proletariat to an organisation of society especially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans."



I want to know how someone acknowledges class struggle. Just simply tell me how you think someone would go about recognizing it.Well it would mean you have to realize that societal change is going to come through by the working classes hands.



It just doesn't make sense to say "shitty economic analysis from a shitty(bourgeois) perspective" As if an economic analysis pointing out how fucked up things are that is (in your opinion) shitty is some how worse because of the publisher's class?No you completely misunderstand. You can be bourgeois and give a good economic analysis, you can be prole and give a bourgeois analysis of capitalism, doesn't matter which class you come from.


Alright, so this is what you said:


You said the only thing they cover over production was how things break fast and are made shitty, or what ever, and I was simply telling you that's not true, or one could say untrue. What is so fucking hard to get about that? Is there something more you're looking for? They tell you you're shit is made cheap and they want more durable materials to be used so your shit lasts longer because we don't have an unlimited amount of resources!!!!!! :crying:What is so fucking hard to get was your response to that. I say what you paraphrase here and your answer to that is basically "untrue, they want to make more durable things with better technology". Which doesn't disprove anything that I said at all. I was saying their critique of capitalist production is our shit is made cheap. You responded by saying that's not true, they want more durable stuff made. :confused: That doesn't make much sense.




You say it's utopian, so I'm guessing you think it's impossible or will never happen.Not how they plan it.

I'm simply saying if enough people learn about it, it's pretty damn possible.
And yes, if you had a good plan or strategy that was implemented it very well could. Could. It could.Okay just keep telling yourself that.


Of course I'm totally making shit up to make them look better.
edit: I'll just leave this here I guess..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qlgzTlAvOo&feature=related
Maybe your idea of democracy is slightly different.
:confused:
He doesn't talk about having democracy in his project, just that we don't have it now. From the Venus Project FAQ section(bolded is my emphasis):
What is the role of Cybernation as Decision Makers?

When computers eventually have sensors extended into all areas of the physical and social complex, we will be able to achieve centralization of decision-making. In a global resource-based economy, decisions would not be based on local politics but on a holistic problem solving approach.
This centralized system could be connected to research labs and universities, with all data monitored and updated constantly. Most of the technology needed for such infrastructure management is currently available. The major difference between today's computer technology and the system we recommend is that our system extends its autonomic nervous system (environmental sensors) into all areas relevant to the social complex. It coordinates a balance between production and distribution, and operates to maintain a balanced-load economy. This technology of industrial electronic feedback can be applied to the entire global economy.
For example, with electrical sensors extended into the agricultural region, computerized systems would manage and control agriculture by monitoring the water table, insects, pests, plant diseases, soil nutrients, and so forth. The information processed will enable us to arrive at more appropriate decision-making based on feedback from the environment.
Computers and artificial intelligence will serve as catalysts for change. They will establish scientific scales of performance. It is doubtful that in the latter part of the twenty-first century people will play any significant role in decision-making. Eventually, the installation of AI and machine decision-making will manage all resources serving the common good.
This will result in a more humane and meaningful approach for shaping tomorrow's civilization that is not based on the opinions or desires of a particular sect or individual. All decisions would be made on the basis of a comprehensive survey of resources, energy, and existing technology without allowing any advantage to a particular nation or select group of people.
This may be accomplished with large-scale, computer-based processors that can assist us in defining the most humane and appropriate ways to manage environmental and human affairs. This is essentially the function of government. With computers processing trillions of bits of information per second, existing technologies far exceed the human capacity for processing information and they can arrive at equitable and sustainable decisions about the development and distribution of physical resources. With this potential, we would evolve beyond political decisions made on the basis of power and advantage.


No democratic control at all, hell there will be little to no input from humans ourselves. We will leave it all up to the super computers. That's Plato's philosopher kings idea but the kings are computers.


Why not plan things? Who says it's not our job? If you want something done, like feeding a city of people, you want to make sure we have a plan to do so. Do you honestly think things like feeding people, clothing people, housing people, aren't planned in some way or another? Our planet doesn't have an unlimited amount of resources, and the 'shitty analysis about production' says things are made to not last very long. Does that sound very sustainable to you?I never said things should never be planned. I'm saying at this point it would be useless for any political party to make a group dedicated to planning how everything will be in future society when they can maybe get a thousand people out on the streets supporting their cause. And it also goes back to the fact that this type of thing doesn't allow active participation in planning by the working class, which is supposed to be what we're all about. Instead it's planning by a few architects and artists in la la land. Also things change, why am I going to make plans for my city when I have absolutely no power to change things in my city if in five years I'm going to have to change the plans because my city gets a couple thousand more people? That's just a waste of my time personally and would be of any communist party out there.

[DeBon]

:rolleyes: What is the difference between Fresco's plan and the utopian socialist Owen's plan? Marx wrote about Fresco years ago in a famous book, he said:

"Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action; historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones; and the gradual, spontaneous class organisation of the proletariat to an organisation of society especially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans."

Cool. Marx couldn't begin to comprehend what we're able to do with modern technology.


Well it would mean you have to realize that societal change is going to come through by the working classes hands.

Would you say it's impossible for a small or medium sized group of people to bring on societal change?


No you completely misunderstand. You can be bourgeois and give a good economic analysis, you can be prole and give a bourgeois analysis of capitalism, doesn't matter which class you come from.

Yes I know that, thanks. I just thought it was odd that you said their analysis was from a shitty bourgeoisie perspective, almost as if you were implying it mattered.


Alright, so this is what you said:

What is so fucking hard to get was your response to that. I say what you paraphrase here and your answer to that is basically "untrue, they want to make more durable things with better technology". Which doesn't disprove anything that I said at all. I was saying their critique of capitalist production is our shit is made cheap. You responded by saying that's not true, they want more durable stuff made. :confused: That doesn't make much sense.

So you want them to cover how exploitation works in Capitalism? Hasn't that been done thousands of times? Besides, it's not all about us, it's about preserving our resources and using them wisely so future generations won't be screwed over while maintaining a high standard of living for people.



Not how they plan it.

k



:confused:
He doesn't talk about having democracy in his project, just that we don't have it now. From the Venus Project FAQ section(bolded is my emphasis):
What is the role of Cybernation as Decision Makers?

When computers eventually have sensors extended into all areas of the physical and social complex, we will be able to achieve centralization of decision-making. In a global resource-based economy, decisions would not be based on local politics but on a holistic problem solving approach.
This centralized system could be connected to research labs and universities, with all data monitored and updated constantly. Most of the technology needed for such infrastructure management is currently available. The major difference between today's computer technology and the system we recommend is that our system extends its autonomic nervous system (environmental sensors) into all areas relevant to the social complex. It coordinates a balance between production and distribution, and operates to maintain a balanced-load economy. This technology of industrial electronic feedback can be applied to the entire global economy.
For example, with electrical sensors extended into the agricultural region, computerized systems would manage and control agriculture by monitoring the water table, insects, pests, plant diseases, soil nutrients, and so forth. The information processed will enable us to arrive at more appropriate decision-making based on feedback from the environment.
Computers and artificial intelligence will serve as catalysts for change. They will establish scientific scales of performance. It is doubtful that in the latter part of the twenty-first century people will play any significant role in decision-making. Eventually, the installation of AI and machine decision-making will manage all resources serving the common good.
This will result in a more humane and meaningful approach for shaping tomorrow's civilization that is not based on the opinions or desires of a particular sect or individual. All decisions would be made on the basis of a comprehensive survey of resources, energy, and existing technology without allowing any advantage to a particular nation or select group of people.
This may be accomplished with large-scale, computer-based processors that can assist us in defining the most humane and appropriate ways to manage environmental and human affairs. This is essentially the function of government. With computers processing trillions of bits of information per second, existing technologies far exceed the human capacity for processing information and they can arrive at equitable and sustainable decisions about the development and distribution of physical resources. With this potential, we would evolve beyond political decisions made on the basis of power and advantage.


No democratic control at all, hell there will be little to no input from humans ourselves. We will leave it all up to the super computers. That's Plato's philosopher kings idea but the kings are computers.

The democratic process is nothing more than majority opinion rule. The democratic process rarely has worked on a large scale, it has, but not for long. When issues come up, such as how we're going to feed X number of people, house X number of people, provide X number of people with electricity, what we're going to do about abortion, gay marriage, the idea that it should be voted on is nice. But when people vote on things, or vociferate their opinions and ideas in politics, it's normally over laws, taxes, basically anything that has to do with the way things are ran or deciding what is considered normal enough to allow and protect under law, such as gay marriage or abortion. These kinds of issues would be completely irrelevant in the Venus Project.

And why should people have to be bothered with opinions on this stuff? A year or two ago there was a huge political uproar in the city I live in because some organization wanted to put in cheap apartments that would be rented out to the homeless, the idea was to reduce homelessness and crime rates in our area. Everyone was completely opposed to these apartments being built because they thought it would bring the homeless problem closer to the suburbs and bring more crime, when in fact projects like this one have proven to slightly reduce crime in areas where they are imposed. These apartments are about 3 blocks from where I live and everything is normal.

What is the relevance to this lame story? People shouldn't always be entitled to opinions. People need to be presented with facts and reasoning, not "well I think things should be like this" because when you get a group of people who think things should work or function a certain way generally they think like that to serve personal interest.

True democracy is being an individual. Being able to decide where you live, to live where ever you want, to design your own home, having an abundance of food, clean energy, and clean air, having access to an education, that's democracy. Not a group of people who manage to rule by belonging to the majority opinion.



I never said things should never be planned. I'm saying at this point it would be useless for any political party to make a group dedicated to planning how everything will be in future society when they can maybe get a thousand people out on the streets supporting their cause. And it also goes back to the fact that this type of thing doesn't allow active participation in planning by the working class, which is supposed to be what we're all about. Instead it's planning by a few architects and artists in la la land. Also things change, why am I going to make plans for my city when I have absolutely no power to change things in my city if in five years I'm going to have to change the plans because my city gets a couple thousand more people? That's just a waste of my time personally and would be of any communist party out there.

No see here's the thing, people need to get over their ego trip and realize they're not the center of the universe and that our planet doesn't have an unlimited amount of resources and if we want to live a life of sustainability we really need to redesign how we do things.

[Kenco Smooth]

And why should people have to be bothered with opinions on this stuff? A year or two ago there was a huge political uproar in the city I live in because some organization wanted to put in cheap apartments that would be rented out to the homeless, the idea was to reduce homelessness and crime rates in our area. Everyone was completely opposed to these apartments being built because they thought it would bring the homeless problem closer to the suburbs and bring more crime, when in fact projects like this one have proven to slightly reduce crime in areas where they are imposed. These apartments are about 3 blocks from where I live and everything is normal.

What is the relevance to this lame story? People shouldn't always be entitled to opinions. People need to be presented with facts and reasoning, not "well I think things should be like this" because when you get a group of people who think things should work or function a certain way generally they think like that to serve personal interest.


So who decides these things? The enlightened scientists who live hundreds of miles away from the site of their action and who can near enough never find even close to unanimous backing in their discipline? The same scientists who have shown many times that they are happy to extend laboratory circumstances, where 'almost totally safe' passes, into the real world causing huge harm to the individuals who had no choice in living nearby this 'almost totally safe' project when an 'improbable' catastrophe happens?

This view of science, ignoring the complete imbalance of vulnerability to risk from science, is both ridiculous and malicious. Denying an individual a voice to say "I am unhappy with the course of action being carried out by these scientists" is akin to denying them the right to speak out against any other member of society foisting risks upon them with no mandate.


True democracy is being an individual. Being able to decide where you live, to live where ever you want, to design your own home, having an abundance of food, clean energy, and clean air, having access to an education, that's democracy. Not a group of people who manage to rule by belonging to the majority opinion.


That sure is a nice sanitized definition you have of 'true democracy' there. Shame it's a load of crap. Attempting to define any social/political concept in terms of what it means to an individual is foolish. Not to mention your above defense of an unaccountable technocracy adds the important disclaimer "when the informed and rational members of state allow it" to all your definitions of what true democracy is.

[DeBon]

So who decides these things? The enlightened scientists who live hundreds of miles away from the site of their action and who can near enough never find even close to unanimous backing in their discipline? The same scientists who have shown many times that they are happy to extend laboratory circumstances, where 'almost totally safe' passes, into the real world causing huge harm to the individuals who had no choice in living nearby this 'almost totally safe' project when an 'improbable' catastrophe happens?

You do realize that before most engineers or scientists that build theses 'big mean scary projects', if they're not rushed by a budget, or being pushed to put out faulty plans by their special interests who fund them, they generally do a lot of extensive planning and thinking ahead. The monetary system is what limits and corrupts science and engineers. Just sayin'


This view of science, ignoring the complete imbalance of vulnerability to risk from science, is both ridiculous and malicious. Denying an individual a voice to say "I am unhappy with the course of action being carried out by these scientists" is akin to denying them the right to speak out against any other member of society foisting risks upon them with no mandate.

No, if someone isn't pleased with something they are free to say so, and if they have a point of valid reasons then it's considered. I fail to see what you would be unhappy with, seeing as it's a lawless, classless society. The only decisions being made are related to the functionality of society, there is no monetary incentive or private interest here guiding scientists and engineers.


That sure is a nice sanitized definition you have of 'true democracy' there. Shame it's a load of crap. Attempting to define any social/political concept in terms of what it means to an individual is foolish.

I guess I like my way of thinking.


Not to mention your above defense of an unaccountable technocracy adds the important disclaimer "when the informed and rational members of state allow it" to all your definitions of what true democracy is.

Who makes decisions now? You have no say in anything that goes on in the world.
Who would make decisions on a Communist society? A little bit of everyone, in theory.

And there is no state in this system, it's a stateless, lawless, classless society.

[RED DAVE]

The monetary system is what limits and corrupts science and engineers.Methinks I detect the stench of Technocracy.


The only decisions being made are related to the functionality of society, there is no monetary incentive or private interest here guiding scientists and engineers.Yup, Technocracy.

RED DAVE

[DeBon]

Methinks I detect the stench of Technocracy.

Yup, Technocracy.

RED DAVE

Well if you mean Technocracy Inc., the organization that pretty much dissolved in the early 40's (I think, maybe the late 30's), then no, it's not that Technocracy.

[RED DAVE]

Well if you mean Technocracy Inc., the organization that pretty much dissolved in the early 40's (I think, maybe the late 30's), then no, it's not that Technocracy.Actually, Technocracy Inc. is alive if not well. We had some heavy debates about it about two years ago.

The antiworking class, petty-bourgeois nature of Technocracy, of all flavors, is quite apparent.

RED DAVE

[DeBon]

Actually, Technocracy Inc. is alive if not well. We had some heavy debates about it about two years ago.

The antiworking class

RED DAVE

If you ask a Socialist what he wants, he'll be in the interest of the working man, wanting safe working conditions and making sure he gets plenty of holidays.

If you ask an evil 'Technocrat' what he wants, he says the efficient use of technology to relieve man of tedious work, so man isn't subject to the 9-5 life which makes him tired and ignorant, and make time for human progress.

Me and my evil 'technocratic' agenda. :sneaky:

[RED DAVE]

If you ask a Socialist what he wants, he'll be in the interest of the working man, wanting safe working conditions and making sure he gets plenty of holidays.Uhh, Comrade, it's a little more than that. Socialism is the revolutionary control of the economy and all of society by the working class. Safe working condtions and plenty of holidays (:D) are as a result of working class rule, not the purpose of it.


If you ask an evil 'Technocrat' what he wants, he says the efficient use of technology to relieve man of tedious work, so man isn't subject to the 9-5 life which makes him tired and ignorant, and make time for human progress.Notice that there is nothing in your statement about workers control of society, especially not of the economy.


Me and my evil 'technocratic' agenda. :sneaky:Prepare to get a political ass-whupping if you try to defend Technocracy. :D

RED DAVE

[Leftsolidarity]

We have a few Zeitgeisters in the occupy movement I work with. They spend the whole time going "MONEY IS EVILLLLLLLLL!!!! END THE FED!!!!! NOTHING WORKS!!!!!!!"

They are completely counter-productive from what I've seen. They think everything is a massive conspriacy and try to shoot everything down but NEVER offer a solution to anything other than their over-used meaningless catch phrases.

I've had more productive interactions with right-leaning people in the Occupy movement.

[DeBon]

Uhh, Comrade, it's a little more than that. Socialism is the revolutionary control of the economy and all of society by the working class. Safe working condtions and plenty of holidays (:D) are as a result of working class rule, not the purpose of it.

Thanks for defining it for me. :rolleyes:


Notice that there is nothing in your statement about workers control of society, especially not of the economy.

Jesus you're over analyzing it. First off, both of those were broad statements or summaries you could expect from someone belonging to each idea, and it was to prove a point that both ideas are ideological attempts to look out for people in general. Both are for a stateless, classless society, you need to understand that.


Prepare to get a political ass-whupping if you try to defend Technocracy. :D

RED DAVE

Not a technocrat, dummy. Apparently you haven't thoroughly read through this thread. :D

edit: Before you come at me attacking this evil technocrat, do me a favor and ducking Google resource based economy. You know that feel when social democrats attacks Communism despite the fact they have never done a lick of research or read a single word of Marx? You are the social democrat and I'm the Marxist in this situation, but you can replace one with Communist and the other with supporter of a resource based economy as presented by JF.

[DeBon]

They are completely counter-productive from what I've seen. They think everything is a massive conspriacy and try to shoot everything down but NEVER offer a solution to anything other than their over-used meaningless catch phrases.

....this is why I generally don't like to stand up for 'Zeitgeisters', even though generally speaking when you ask them for a solution their response should be something a long the lines of "a resource based economy". Sadly it's the contrary.

[RED DAVE]

both [socialism and technocracy] are for a stateless, classless society, you need to understand that.you need to understand that this is not so. Technocracy is the rule of a stratum of the petty-bourgeoisie. Socialism is the rule of the working class.

RED DAVE

[DeBon]

you need to understand that this is not so. Technocracy is the rule of a stratum of the petty-bourgeoisie. Socialism is the rule of the working class.RED DAVE[/QUOTE]

If you haven't noticed, I'be been using technocracy sarcastically. Do you're homework or at least read through the entire thread, it's called a resource based economy.

[Leftsolidarity]

The Zeitgeist movement is definitely not one trying to put power into the hands of the working class.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Cool. Marx couldn't begin to comprehend what we're able to do with modern technology.
But he could begin to comprehend what it meant to be Utopian, something which apparently hasn't changed much since 1848.



Would you say it's impossible for a small or medium sized group of people to bring on societal change? Depends on what you mean by "small or medium sized groups". But I believe that major societal change is going to come about through the hands of the working class. That's my final answer.


Yes I know that, thanks. I just thought it was odd that you said their analysis was from a shitty bourgeoisie perspective, almost as if you were implying it mattered. Oh it does matter if you critique capitalism from a bourgeois perspective. What I'm saying is you don't have to actually be bourgeois to to give a bourgeois perspective of capitalism as I have seen many many working class people do unfortunately. The fact that it's bourgeois is definitely a problem.




So you want them to cover how exploitation works in Capitalism? Hasn't that been done thousands of times?
What a fucking cop-out that is.

Besides, it's not all about us, it's about preserving our resources and using them wisely so future generations won't be screwed over while maintaining a high standard of living for people.So your excuse for them not having a good analysis of capitalism/the class struggle is we have to think about future generations? Ridiculous, you can have a good analysis of these things and still plan to preserve our resources to save future generations of the trouble.


The democratic process is nothing more than majority opinion rule. The democratic process rarely has worked on a large scale, it has, but not for long. When issues come up, such as how we're going to feed X number of people, house X number of people, provide X number of people with electricity, what we're going to do about abortion, gay marriage, the idea that it should be voted on is nice. But when people vote on things, or vociferate their opinions and ideas in politics, it's normally over laws, taxes, basically anything that has to do with the way things are ran or deciding what is considered normal enough to allow and protect under law, such as gay marriage or abortion. These kinds of issues would be completely irrelevant in the Venus Project.

And why should people have to be bothered with opinions on this stuff? A year or two ago there was a huge political uproar in the city I live in because some organization wanted to put in cheap apartments that would be rented out to the homeless, the idea was to reduce homelessness and crime rates in our area. Everyone was completely opposed to these apartments being built because they thought it would bring the homeless problem closer to the suburbs and bring more crime, when in fact projects like this one have proven to slightly reduce crime in areas where they are imposed. These apartments are about 3 blocks from where I live and everything is normal.

What is the relevance to this lame story? People shouldn't always be entitled to opinions. People need to be presented with facts and reasoning, not "well I think things should be like this" because when you get a group of people who think things should work or function a certain way generally they think like that to serve personal interest.Nice backpedal dude. So first they were democratic and you get mad at me for saying you're just making up shit for them to try and make them look good. I prove you wrong by simply looking at the FAQ and suddenly any concept of democracy is wrong. You were very keen on saying that the Venus Project is democratic not more than just a page ago but suddenly faced with the truth of what it actually stands for you've done a complete 180.

You're just as bad as the capitalists who say that us workers are too dumb to direct production ourselves so they are needed, apparently we're too dumb to have political or economic decision making power. I wonder why the Venus Project would be like that? Oh yeah, it's because they're coming from a shitty bourgeois perspective!


True democracy is being an individual. Being able to decide where you live, to live where ever you want, to design your own home, having an abundance of food, clean energy, and clean air, having access to an education, that's democracy. Not a group of people who manage to rule by belonging to the majority opinion.Hey I have "true democracy" now, I am an individual that gets to spend my money however I choose! True democracy, voting with my dollar!
You have no fucking idea what democracy is. If having clean air is true democracy feudal society had true democracy before we industrialized and screwed that one up.


No see here's the thing, people need to get over their ego trip and realize they're not the center of the universe and that our planet doesn't have an unlimited amount of resources and if we want to live a life of sustainability we really need to redesign how we do things.
Nice cop-out again, nothing you said here is relevant to what I had said. You want to live a life of sustainability where we plan how to use our resources effectively? Join the fucking communist movement.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

If you haven't noticed, I'be been using technocracy sarcastically. Do you're homework or at least read through the entire thread, it's called a resource based economy.
Really? Because earlier you backed the VP when I showed that the VP says we should be ruled by super-computers. Maybe VP is technocratic? Ever think of that?

[DeBon]

But he could begin to comprehend what it meant to be Utopian, something which apparently hasn't changed much since 1848.

Good thing the VP/RBE isn't utopian.



Depends on what you mean by "small or medium sized groups". But I believe that major societal change is going to come about through the hands of the working class. That's my final answer.

Aha! Then class struggle is acknowledged!


Oh it does matter if you critique capitalism from a bourgeois perspective. What I'm saying is you don't have to actually be bourgeois to to give a bourgeois perspective of capitalism as I have seen many many working class people do unfortunately. The fact that it's bourgeois is definitely a problem.

Okay....
edit:
Critique isn't put on the shoulders of just Capitalism, it's put on the entire system, the way things work as a whole, not just the free-market.


What a fucking cop-out that is.

So your excuse for them not having a good analysis of capitalism/the class struggle is we have to think about future generations? Ridiculous, you can have a good analysis of these things and still plan to preserve our resources to save future generations of the trouble.

I fail to see how that's a cop out. Seriously, I can pick up the closest magazine and flip to the third page and read "Nearly half the world's population lives on less than $2 per day..." Why the hell do we need another analysis on how fucked up things are? Or better yet, how does an analysis of things change anything? Opening people's eyes to what's wrong in the world yea, it does, but writing academic papers explaining the mode of production does no more than make people understand why things are fucked up, and we have plenty of those. I've read plenty of them at least.



Nice backpedal dude. So first they were democratic and you get mad at me for saying you're just making up shit for them to try and make them look good. I prove you wrong by simply looking at the FAQ and suddenly any concept of democracy is wrong. You were very keen on saying that the Venus Project is democratic not more than just a page ago but suddenly faced with the truth of what it actually stands for you've done a complete 180.

Never was mad. Wasn't making shit up, I clearly said you and I have different view on democracy. Look back in the thread. I never even implied the democratic process was used. I actually refrained from giving my views on democracy because I feared the 100 replies that would follow spewing out "TECHNOCRATIC ASSHOLE"


You're just as bad as the capitalists who say that us workers are too dumb to direct production ourselves so they are needed, apparently we're too dumb to have political or economic decision making power. I wonder why the Venus Project would be like that? Oh yeah, it's because they're coming from a shitty bourgeois perspective!

Implying there would be politics or economics in the Venus Project. Silly. I'll reuse my analogy earlier. You're the social democrat that is attacking Communism with out knowing what Communism is, never done research, and never read a lick of Marx.
Replace social democrat with Communist, Marx with (I guess I could say) Jacque Fresco, and there you have it. You don't know what you're talking about.


Hey I have "true democracy" now, I am an individual that gets to spend my money however I choose! True democracy, voting with my dollar!
You have no fucking idea what democracy is. If having clean air is true democracy feudal society had true democracy before we industrialized and screwed that one up.

You keep thinking that.

Did you have any say over whether or not we went to war? Did you have any say over the space program? Are you even old enough to vote? Democracy my ass.


Nice cop-out again, nothing you said here is relevant to what I had said. You want to live a life of sustainability where we plan how to use our resources effectively? Join the fucking communist movement.

Holy shit it's not a cop out. The aim of a RBE is to redesign the way we do things to be as efficient and sustainable as possible, while using a civil and scientific approach to things. I said this to counter your claim that it's not a movement's job to plan things, it is if that movement's aim and goal is to do so.

[DeBon]

Really? Because earlier you backed the VP when I showed that the VP says we should be ruled by super-computers. Maybe VP is technocratic? Ever think of that?

When you think rule, you probably think of law making, economic decisions, foreign policies, trading, and all that. It's funny because all of that is irrelevant in the Venus Project.

edit:

I re-read what you said. Technocracy Inc is an organization that has very different views. Comparing the VP/RBE to Technocracy is like comparing Communism to the Equal Money System. If you mean technocratic in the sense that technology is used in the most efficient way to lighten the work load, and attempt to eliminate the need to boring repetitive industrial work, then yes it is technocratic in that sense. But it's not Technocracy. Nothing wrong with shedding a little light.

[thefinalmarch]

The monetary system is what limits and corrupts science and engineers.Methinks I detect the stench of Technocracy.
Well actually I don't know why you're getting worked up about this sentence in particular. DeBon has got a point. Basically all research and development presently being undertaken in bourgeois society is not being done to further humanity's knowledge and understanding, but rather it is done in accordance with the profit motive.

Also, many exciting and important R&D programs are regularly pulled for financial and economic reasons. See: NASA's Constellation program.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Aha! Then class struggle is acknowledged!
How? By saying you need a lot of people to agree with you before you can implement change? By this logic Republicans and Democrats believe in the class struggle(and have much more working class support than the VP). Oh how many times I've seen "Don't exploit those poor child workers in Asia, buy American" from my liberal friends. Do they believe social change will come through the working class, by the working class, for the working class? No it will be through the masses(which include all classes) accepting Fresco's model cities and all that hogwash.



I fail to see how that's a cop out.
Because I say they give a shitty analysis of capitalism(aka, current society) and your response is "why do we need another analysis of capitalism". I don't know, why don't you ask the VP, for they did try and give an analysis of our current society and of capitalism. But a critique of modern society, why would that ever be needed :rolleyes:. It matters how you come at the problems too because if you're looking at a problem from the incorrect viewpoint your solutions will be wrong. For example, when people blame the countries ills on the nations perceived distancing from God.
Their critique matters...


Seriously, I can pick up the closest magazine and flip to the third page and read "Nearly half the world's population lives on less than $2 per day..." Well the average person doesn't have those types of magazines lying around near them, which is a problem.


Why the hell do we need another analysis on how fucked up things are?Because if you want people to change society you have to convince them that something is wrong in the first place. The Zeitgeist films/VP do this too, I just think their analysis is shitty.


Or better yet, how does an analysis of things change anything? Opening people's eyes to what's wrong in the world yea, it does,You just answered your own question.
but writing academic papers explaining the mode of production does no more than make people understand why things are fucked up, and we have plenty of those. I've read plenty of them at least.
And you have to have that understanding of why/how things are fucked up. A lot of people know that something is fucked up, they have that feeling, they just don't know what that something actually is. Which is why you need a sound analysis that will lead to the correct answers to the problems.




Wasn't making shit up, I clearly said you and I have different view on democracy.
You clearly said we have a different view on democracy once I showed you they were anti-democratic. Either you're really fucking stupid and actually believe having clean air is "true democracy" while most people would have no say whatsoever in anything or you're trying to cover for your own ass here(which I think is more probable imo). Just admit you were wrong dude...

I never even implied the democratic process was used.
And I'll quote you:
(In response to me saying we would be ruled by scientists)

No.. you're reading what I said and interpreting it the way you want so I sound like some evil anti-democratic bourgeois bastard. Reread what I said and notice how I said solutions are suggested and decided on.
No democracy here, the critical thinkers would come up with a suggestion and then it would be decided on. How? Well you say you aren't anti-democratic so obviously you're in favor of democracy.



I actually refrained from giving my views on democracy because I feared the 100 replies that would follow spewing out "TECHNOCRATIC ASSHOLE"Which are well deserved imo.




Implying there would be politics or economics in the Venus Project. Silly.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXRQEolHURqJ4jHr_dj0oG9iMNltPRt 1AMWSforhfRnmjdCUbRrQ

You've got to be kidding right? Maybe you just are that stupid? There will be an economy and politics OF COURSE!!!!! It's called a Resource Based Economy for Christ's sake. Are goods going to be made in this project, are goods going to be distributed in this project? Yes of course, it would be an economy. Are things going to be decided upon? Yes. Then there are going to be politics.


You keep thinking that.

Did you have any say over whether or not we went to war? Did you have any say over the space program? Are you even old enough to vote? Democracy my ass.It was sarcasm, I thought that would be pretty clear.




Holy shit it's not a cop out. The aim of a RBE is to redesign the way we do things to be as efficient and sustainable as possible, while using a civil and scientific approach to things. I said this to counter your claim that it's not a movement's job to plan things, it is if that movement's aim and goal is to do so.So to counter my claim that we shouldn't be planning every facet of life for the future right now you say people need to stop thinking the world revolved around them and that we need to change things? Yeah that doesn't counter what I said at all, in fact what you said was so vague it could have been coming out of the mouth of a environmentalist liberal.


When you think rule, you probably think of law making, economic decisions, foreign policies, trading, and all that. It's funny because all of that is irrelevant in the Venus Project.

So deciding the how/where/why of producing things and then the distribution of those things are irrelevant in the VP? Because, you know, those are economic decisions.