The Venus Project

Yeah that's all well and good but you've not been able to explain how or why beyond two or three sentences which I've already dealt with at length.

I dealt in post #42, second last paragraph, about the Venus Project's version of a resource based economy and why it isn't Marxist, so yeah, aside from Zeitgeist's position I've also mentioned them. Of course, you could also read the two articles I've cited as well.

No, no I haven't been. I have been very consistent in my analysis which has spanned a good half dozen posts now, and that can be seen in how I've referenced back to my own quotes and posts in every one. Your problem is you say something like this "oh but you are inconsistent and it's not actually an argument - it's just words. They don't mean anything because you've never pointed out where, never pointed out why, and have done nothing in this thread except simplistic one-liners.

I'm sure some posters on this forum will certainly disagree with me, and they'll likely say why exactly rather than what you've done, but I highly doubt any will find my argument 'inconsistent'.

I dont think it necessarily follows that because a particular ideology (allegedly) has its origins in a particular theory, that that ideology, or the organisation embodying it , must necessarily bear the stamp of that theory in the way it currently interprets the world. Organisations and the ideologies they project are not static things but evolve over time and in a fashion that can quite possibly erase all trace of at least some , if not all, of their founding dogmas. Meaning you can in fact separate an ideology as currently advocated from its historical orgins


In this particular instance, I think the evidence you cite is weak and circumstantial. You refer to McFadden's antisemitic idea that "there is an elite Jewish conspiracy which runs the world and controls the world flow of money" Sure. its a crackpot idea and antisemitic at that. But then you say "As I pointed out, Zeitgeist's theory merely changes the Jewish conspiracy to a banking conspiracy of a few elites." But excuse me - how does that make Zeitgeists ideology antisemitic in itself? It might share in common with McFadden the view that a tiny financal elte controls the global economy and the flow of money within it but it does not follow from that that Zeitgeist is saying this is a specifically Jewish conspiracy. Unless you have evidence that this is what Zeitgeist is actually saying then your charge would seem to be complete unwarranted. Do you have such evidence? In which case, would you care to share it with us?

For myself, I reject the idea that capitalism is operated on the basis of some kind of conspracy (which is not to say, of course, that there are not conspiracies!). However the influence of finance capital on the workings of the capitalist economy cannot simply be brushed aside. In fact there is a burgeoning literature on the theory of financialisation which John Bellamy Foster usefully describes in these terms:

Indeed, since the 1970s we have witnessed what Kari Polanyi Levitt appropriately called “The Great Financialization.”6 Financialization can be defined as the long-run shift in the center of gravity of the capitalist economy from production to finance. This change has been reflected in every aspect of the economy, including: (1) increasing financial profits as a share of total profits; (2) rising debt relative to GDP; (3) the growth of FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate) as a share of national income; (4) the proliferation of exotic and opaque financial instruments; and (5) the expanding role of financial bubbles.

(http://monthlyreview.org/2010/10/01/...f-accumulation)

My guess - and it is only a guess since Im not that familiar with Zietgeist - is that Zeitgeist is tapping into a popular mood of unease at this "long-run shift in the center of gravity of the capitalist economy from production to finance" and the sense of outrage at governments bailing out the banks at a time of economic crisis while social welfare programme are brutally slashed.

Though the theory behind it is ultimately flawed and onesided, one can be forgiven for thinking - like Zeitgeist and large numbers of ordinary workers apparently - that it is the banks who pulll all the important strings in today's money obsessed world

I think I did. As mentioned earlier this link is particularly useful at arguing that the majority of Zeitgeist theory is lifted directly from the Protocols. It is far more expansive than my humble posts so far. I know this is a lazy response, perhaps, to your question, but if necessary I'll try to expand further at some point, maybe tomorrow.

Sir, being a member of zeitgeist, and you NOT being a member of zetgeist, let me assert with the little authority I have that NO IDEOLOGY or no part of Zeitgeist / Venus Projects has ANY SORT of anti semitic elements to it.

Even if Peter quoted an anti-semitic individual, it doesn't matter AT ALL. As long as the quote was not anti-semitic itself, it doesn't matter. You sir have a very narrow view of the world.

Please stop using medicine.
You know why? Most modern day medicine came about due to animal testing. So since you are using / or used medicine that came about due to animal testing, you torture animals yourself.

Yes. You sound THIS ridiculous.

well, first off, the 1st film is Peter Joseph's own personal opinions and it does not pertain to the movement itself.

HOWEVER, that being said, I do not know who these "men behind the curtains" are. But it matters not if they happen to be Jews, Muslims, Christians or ANYTHING else. The reality is that there are POWERFUL corporations who have crazy amounts of influence within our government and our economy and and in essence, they somewhat do "control" what our country does.
This is a symptom of capitalism because major corporations have a tendency to gain differential advantage and a common method of doing so is gaining large amounts of influence within the government. It does not matter if the major players are jews atheists muslims or satanists. What matters is that they are quite immoral and its a natural cause of capitalism.

But im sure you understand this.

So basically you are a stalinist. Not a marxist.

Last I checked, a feature of marxism is a stateless society (and hence a united world).

A united government is there for transition into the final stages. So yes, either RBE and Marxism advocate the same stateless society or you are just a stalinist.

1. So tell me, IS Israel committing apartheid against Palestinians or not? I am not talking about Jews here, but Israelis. The reason I ask is that you come across as a very pro Israel person (rather than a pro jew) because you drive this anti antisemitism thing WAY overboard. But seriously, answer this question, is Israel committing apartheid against Palestinians or not.

2. Show me ANY official anti semitic quote made by a Zeitgeist as a movement. ANY. If our quote does not contain anything antisemitic in it, then we are not antisemitic. As simple as that. If doing so makes us antisemitic, then YOU using medicine would make you an animal torturer.

1. This is really bad argument from your part.. I personally do not know McFadden or his works so I cannot judge whether he is antisemitic or not (I certainly don't want to base my opinion off a person as biased as you are).

2. Your point #2 is irrelevant because I have consistently maintained that NO PART of zeitgeist EVER advocated antisemitism so only a mentally ill person would relate Zeitgeist to antisemitism (because there is NO antisemitism within the movement).

3. For point #3, you proved how desperate you are to save face because you blatantly took my words out of context. My point was that it does not MATTER if Zeitgeist quoted an antisemitic person, as long as the quote itself is not antisemitic. So instead of saying "whether or not Zeitgeist used a quote from an antisemetic person" I phrased my sentence as ""just because they've quoted some anti-semitic people...".

I did so because I assumed you had the level of intelligence to understand what I was meaning but you clearly do not.

Now please understand that I AM NOT disputing whether McFadden is anti semitic or not (I am not confirming or denying it) since I do not know much about McFadden or what he stands for. What I DO know however is that none of our quotes are anti-semetic.

Like I said, saying that Zeitgeist is antisemetic because they used a quote from an antisemetic person (although the quote itself is not antisemetic) is the same as saying that sam_b is an animal torturer for using medicine.

.

Once again, I cannot dispute if McFadden is an antisemtic person or not. But what I CAN confirm is that all major banks work together to maintain oligopoly over the global markets and Zeitgeist was simply pointing out yet another flaw with capitalism. If you equate blaming bankers with being antisemitic, then you are either inferring that all jews are bankers (which is clearly not true) or you are just showing the world that you suffer from acute schizophrenia and need serious medical attention.


.

Nope. Its not. Sorry. I doubt if all major bankers are Jewish. So when Zeitgeist is blaming bankers, they are blaming capitalism. Not jews. So if a person even MENTIONS bakers trying to exercise influence on world governments, it automatically becomes a "jewish conspiracy" and "antisemitic"?

I can use the same logic and saying that by just MENTIONING the word terrorism, you are being "antimuslimist". It works both ways.

All bankers are not jews. So blaming bankers is NOT blaming jews (hence its not anti semitism).

It is irrelevant where the idea originates from. What matters is the present reality and at present, the bankers have WAY too much power and needs to be stopped (a natural consequence of capitalism).



Nope and nope. As I said, using quotes from questionable people does not make us questionable as long as the quote is valid / faultless.

If your line of reasoning was correct, then us using medicine would make us all animal torturers. It doesn't.

If Hitler came up with the theory of gravity, would you reject it just because he was an inhumane fascist? See my point?


And last, you clearly know absolutely NOTHING about the core principles of Zeitgeist. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with international bankers and McFadden's ideologies. The films may have used his quotes to prove a point about capitalism, but Zeitgeist is 100% about forming a system based around the principles that all resources on earth is common heritage of all human beings.

It has NOTHING to do with capitalism. We just use these materials to showcase the shortcomings of capitalism. But NO ASPECT of capitalism is present within our ideologies.

We just want a system that will allow everyone to thrive and live peacefully and happily.

Please refrain from making further comments about Zeitgeist because like I said, you have absolutely no idea about what you're talking about.

Sorry mate. Simply posting a link that reiterates your baseless claims does not prove anything.

As long as we don't say or do anything antisemitic, we are NOT antisemitic. Its as simple as that.

It does not matter where the origins of our reasoning (against capitalism) comes from the same way it would not have mattered if Hitler created the theory of gravity (you and I would still use it. but it wouldn't make us Nazi if we did).

Understand?

Yeah, sorry but that proves nothing at all. It's like that EDL guy that came here and said he could say for sure the EDL weren't racist because he was a member and we weren't.

Keep saying it all you like, it doesn't make my argument go away. I've already showed why in Zeitgeist's case this doesn't work.

Nice strawman.

I see what you're saying, I really do, and aside from saying this doesn't at all factor in labour surplus value etc etc it's agreeable. But the way it is presented in Zeitgeist is not this, is it? It's that there is some sort of small ruling elite of bankers.

Ho ho, this is a bit funny. Firstly, no I'm not a Stalinist. Secondly, I am right, a united world is not a united government. I'm using 'united government' because that's what Zeitgeist is saying is the plan of those ol' bankers.

As I explained in a previous post, you cannot cherry-pick factors you think are Marxist without the entire Marxist view and analysis. A stateless society is not Marxist in itself. What I said if you look back is that Zeitgeist isn't Marxist because it at best underestimates and at worst ignores the role of manual labour, and has a different understanding of what money is than Marxists do.

Hmmmm.

Nope.

Oh course it is. Why this is relevant to your enquiries is beyond me. (hint hint: checking tendencies in top right corner can yield interesting results).

Point one: look back and see where I say that I don't believe Zeitgeisters to be anti-semites, but that their political worldview cannot be separated from the anti-semitism of the protocols.

Point two: This is akin to saying the Conservatives aren't a racist party because they haven't said anything in their manifesto that's directly racist.

See, this is really fun and all, but I've just received a text commanding me to go out, get drunk and obviously be a big Stalinist and animal torturer, so I'm going to have to leave it here for now. I'll reply to the rest of your post tomorrow at some point, because there's a couple of crackers I'm dying to reply to (I am an 'antimuslimist' now I see. Is that even a word?)

Sorry, but I just dont find this link particularly useful at all in addressing the question I raised. What the aritcle suggests is that there is a similarity in the structure of argumentation employed by the film "Zeitgeist: The Movie" and the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There may be something in this although it could also be a case of selective reading to fit a preconceived idea. I cannot pass comment as I have neither seen the film nor read the book.

But let us for the sake of argument say you are right - what then? Correlation does not signify causation. Yet this is what article you linked to wants to suggest. It claims several times that something mentioned in the move was "lifted" from book. Consider this excerpt from the article


There is a section in the film in which it is claimed that the justifications for America going into a number of world wars were orchestrated by “men behind the government.” We are told that the sinking of the Lusitania was planned, that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident never happened, that Pearl Harbour was known about well in advance, and of course that 9/11 was an inside job. We are told that both sides of conflicts have been funded by the same “international bankers.” This section of the film is lifted directly from Protocol 7, which reads, “Throughout all of Europe, and by means of relations in Europe, in other continents also, we must create ferments, discords, and hostility. Therein we gain a double advantage. In the first place we keep in check all countries, for they well know that we have the power whenever we like to create disorders and to restore order… We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbours of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbours should also venture to stand collectively against us, then we must offer resistance by universal war.”



I find this very weak and purely speculative. Why must what the film says have been "lifted directly" from the book? Could not what the film says have derived from some other source entirely or even, dare I say it, be based on demonstrable fact. There have, after all, been confimed cases where weapons from a particular country have gone to both sides involved in a civil war. This was the case, for instance, with Amercian weaponry and training in the Congo cicil war during the Clinton Administration. The point is that it is not only anti-semites that engage in conspiracy theories and that anti-semites might be drawing upon a common stock of core ideas that are prevalent amongst consiracy theorists in general


But, above all, what the article completely fails to substantiate is your claim
that "the ideology advocated by Zeitgeist cannot be separated from anti-semitism". This is a patently absurd. Now it may be, for all I know, that some Zeitgeisters are anti-semitic but it does not follow at all that the ideology of Zeitgeist is anti-semitic

You are asserting that Zeitgeisters merely replace the words "world Jewish conspiracy" with "international bankers". How does that make Zeitgeist ideology antisemitic? You would have thought on the face of it that it was quite the opposite - that it was not Jews that are held accountable for this conspracy but "international bankers". It would seem rather strange that an antisemitic outfit would not seek to bring Jewsih people into disrepute by naming and blaming them in their capacity a "Jews"

So I ask you again - where is the direct evidence that Zeitgeist sees Jews ion particular as the agents of this global conspiracy? Saying that it relies on the kind of arguments used by anti semites to rationalise their own conspiratorial view of the world is no argument at all. In fact it smacks of more than a little conspiracy thinking itself

OK Ive just spotted this

Well, if you now say you dont believe Zeitgeisters to be anti-semites then clearly it stands to reason that their political worldview can indeed be separated from the anti-semitism of the protocols. You are trying to attribute antisemitism to individuals who by your own admission are not anti-semitic. Where's the logic in that?

The comparison doesnt work in this case. If the Conservatives are a racist party that has to be for a reason that has nothing to do with what is stated in their Manifesto. - i.e. that they are a party populated by racists. Not only is there nothing that I am aware of in the literature or Manifesto of the Zeitgeist Movement that indicates it is anti semitic but we are now assured that you "don't believe Zeitgeisters to be anti-semites"

Have never said this in the entire duration of the debate.

Nope.

I see this discussion has spiraled downward, but I'll leave my 2 cents here before I leave. I looked into TVP a few months ago, and although it was very interesting, it seemed like too much of a work-in-progress to really want to dedicate myself to it. I think the project should actually be done in a marxist context, and get away from the weird technocrat tone that it pushes now. I wouldn't mind living in a society like that, but I think something similar can only be accomplished through communism, not through bourgeois governments all suddenly deciding to hold hands and give up their resources and power to a small group of technocrats so that peace and harmony can be achieved.

I'm a commie and I've heard the "human nature" argument and every other reason why my belief is faulty so I hate to say it, but this seems too idealistic and utopian. if another approach were taken to secure this outcome, then maybe I could accept it, but for now it just seems like a sci-fi utopia that falls apart outside of a vacuum.

Well then I suggest your statement that Zeitgeists "political worldview cannot be separated from the anti-semitism of the protocols" is completely misleading and you should rephrase what you are trying to say. Something that cannot be separated from the antisemitism of the Protocols is by that very fact, antisemitic

alot of people here have not looked too deeply into the venus project but have strong opinions. everything you need to know about it can be heard from jacques own mouth. i'm not about to go into a long knock down drag out argument here. too much to cover, even aside from what has been said already. the venus project is not a bad thing, quite the opposite and it does not equal zeitgeist. the two are separate entities. alot of people keep referring to them as if they were the same, they are not. again, everything you need to know about TVP can be heard from jacque himself.

Focusing-in-on and building-on the *crux* of The Venus Project, it may be useful to revisit the concept of a 'resource based economy'.

I'll add to my comments from post #33 and assert that, however abundant any good or service may be (consider the ease of sending out electronic messages today), there will always be a 'horizon' of to-be-developed technologies that, then, necessarily require human attention and labor of some kind.

Not-fully-developed technologies, then, would be *limited*, or "scarce", resources, and could not just summarily be 'evenly distributed' to 'everyone', per the approach of the resource based economy. Such a formulaic / algorithmic treatment of limited resources *would* beg the labor question, and liberated-labor's own consciousness and self-determination.

What you and the other defenders of TVP/Zeitgeism (sorry) are missing is that "anti-Semitic" is not being used here as a simple slur intended to deprecate those ideas by any means available. They use a narrative that is rooted not just in anti-Semitic politics but in worldviews that are entirely based on anti-Semitism and have relatively recently learned to use "code words" to make their ideas more palatable.

If you heard someone in the U.S. talking about "thugs and gangbangers coming to rape your wife," would you really have to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are utilizing a narrative founded upon racist fearmongering against black people and Latinos?

you don't understand the venus project. not = zeitgest. i suggest you look into it more

Honestly, I don't really give a shit. Based on this thread alone - where even its most ardent defenders have failed to make a good case for how it is both superior to and different from Marxism, other than being technocratic and utopian and avoiding working class politics - the TVP seems like as pointless a repackaging of old leftist ideas as Zeitgeist is for old right-wing ideas. Their (former?) association with Zeitgeist appears to do nothing more than demonstrate their lack of ideological clarity.

First of all Im not actually a member or supporter of TVP/Zeitgeist. I have little more than a fairly superficial knowlege of them as I have made clear. I am willing to listen to both sides of this argument but am not willing to relinguish my critical faculties and just passively accept sweeping pop-sociological type statements by Sam-b ("their political worldview cannot be separated from the anti-semitism of the protocols") or you ("They use a narrative that is rooted not just in anti-Semitic politics but in worldviews that are entirely based on anti-Semitism.)

You dont seem to grasp the simple point Im making. The "narrative" they supposedly employ (what - the movement as a whole or just one or two prominent members?) may well be based on a conspiratorial view of the world and anti-semites may likewise engage in a narrative that is similiarly conspiratorial in nature but it does not follow therefore that TZM itself is anti-semitic in outlook. This is crass logic . Its like saying a cat is an animal and a dog is animal therefore a dog is cat.

You dont seem to be aware, either of you, that this IS what you are both saying even if it is not what you might have intended to say. In your case, how can you possibly say they use a narrative rooted in worldviews "that are entirely based on anti-semitism" and deny that you are charging them with antisemitisim? If the worldview is entirely antisemitic then the narrative on which it is based must likewise be antisemitic. That stands to reason. Otherwise you would be making a meaningless statement. If you said instead that they use a narrative that antisemitism also bases itself on then we would have an entirely different story. Then I might consider what you are saying to be possibly more acceptable.

But thats not what you are saying and since you are seemingly hellbent on wanting to smear TZM with the charge of antisemitism I have to ask again - where is your factual evdience to back up this claim? Sam-b has admitted that he does not think TZM has ever said Jews are the agents of a global conspiracy. Do you?

you gave a shit enough to comment without enough info for even a cursory understanding of what you were talking about. i make a few posts about people not being informed and you shit out of your mouth as if to prove my point. i'm glad you can't be bothered to investigate, you can just judge things based one some half assed internet forum critiques. i see you are some supreme being who can judge things without all the information required. i stand in awe of your abilities. but then if i was as self important as you i might also comment on things and then counter arguments with "well, i can't be bothered to look into it" like you do.

I'm not denying that I'm charging them with anti-Semitism, although in my mind I don't think I am. I'm saying that it's not the simple slur that you make it out to be. It doesn't matter what its individual adherents believe, or claim to believe, if their worldview is shaped by a narrative that is fundamentally anti-Semitic.

First, I would argue that it is not my job to convince myself why I should give a shit about something. Regardless of whether or not you believe this to be true, I think you're missing the point in that I was not actively disparaging this "Venus Project" in that post - I was merely trying to clarify what I thought (and still think) is a major misunderstanding of why the word "anti-Semitism" is being used here.