My take on Zeitgeist: Addendum and The Venus Project. Please read!

Actually what I see is a world going under a neo nazi/chinese style combination fascist state under the Rothschild rule. And this will mean far more blood, sweat and tears than the current grotesque system that makes many feel they've already been sentenced to hell, with the corpses of innocent children so high it can reach to heaven. In an open source, eventually high tech society, everyone would be free to be individuals and pursue their interests nearly full time, the only thing that wouldn't be permitted are those things that harm or control or enslave others, or the planet. Its an absolute win/win. And that it can work has been established by the long history of native north americans. They've already showed it works. This is the updgraded clean technololgy version.
From the point of the world going under fascism and a meat grinder for even more people than previously, to a truly decent free and equal world, is by spreading the knowledge, the meme, in everyone. Its a lot harder to control the people if they know that if they act in unison, they can opt out and start to provide for themselves. These people aren't going to be cogs any more.
As I said, villages like this are already setting up. Hopefully many more will and they will connect, and communicate. The rest will get the message that they have a solution as well.

reply to post by badmedia

Create a society that respects the individuals, and you have a solid community.

Would you have any suggestions regarding the beginnings of the foundation of this society that respects individuals?

I have argued that the members of the society should value the society as a whole over the value of material wealth. I believe I might integrate your concept into my ideal, to better it.

In a society that appreciates the individual, achievements are recognized and achievers are honored. Education is directed to allow the individual to decide what path they wish to follow in life, in terms of what endeavors they wish to pursue. They may also decide to change those pursuits in favor of doing something else, even if it means nothing at all. That person would thus not contribute to society, and not be acknowledged for any further achievements beyond deciding to do nothing. Persons with a natural or preferred disposition for art, music, production, invention, gardening, or any other skill would be able to pursue courses of learning, and experience in the field, similar to old apprenticeship programs, including immersion with others in the same field. Promoting the notion that everyone should be recognized and appreciated for their contributions, even if serving as an example of what not to do (in the case of the one or many who choose to do nothing), leaves no one out. As that notion becomes the mantra of society, the value of material wealth becomes minimal in regards to the value it contains in promoting the society. If someone wants a car, and the carmakers have what the person wants, then it is given, with the acknowledgment that the carmakers have contributed to that person, and anyone that wants a car. Artists distribute their works knowing that others acknowledge his or her skills by obtaining it, and each person who has the art is acknowledged by the askless contribution of art. This pattern can continue indefinitely. The desire to control others will be considered a detriment to the society, as it violates the will of the individual.

This is my suggestion. In terms of how to get it started: Grassroots movements. The politics of this system have always knelt to intense pressure by the organized activities of the masses. It's a start. But it has to perpetuate itself and leave no room for negotiation. It must send the message that the goal is freedom, as we've discussed, and there is no stopping without it. It will cost lives, but all revolutions do.

reply to post by ProPeace77


Yes, it is called the constitution of the US. You see, today it is read as a document of limited rights, instead of as a limited government. This is going to be 1 quick and fast lesson on the constitution, I can go into more detail if you want. The first thing you have to realize is that like everything else in this world, it's manipulated to hell and back right now.

I guess I'll start with the bill of rights. When the bill of rights was coming about, there were 2 very good arguments being made. On the 1 hand, some of the people thought the most basic rights should be listed. They feared that if they were not listed, the people could have them taken away. Good concern. On the other hand, some people didn't want to list them at all. Their concern was that if we listed specific rights, we might someday be reduced to only those rights. Good concern as well. So the solution that satisfied both of these concerns were the 9th and 10th amendments.

The 9th amendment says you can't add an amendment that infringes on a previous given right. The 10th amendment, says that anything not specifically listed is not the job of the government, and it will be passed down to the states, local communities and finally to the individual. Each state has a specific list of jobs it has, and if it doesn't pick it up, it goes down to community, and to individual choice.

The job of the federal government is not to manage our lives as it does today. It is only supposed to make sure the states and local communities do not infringe on the basic listed rights. That is it's job, among the other things in the articles, such as regulating the value of currency(which it also does not do) to ease trade between states, and for crimes that cross borders etc.

If it is not listed, then the government can't do it. Pretty simple. It is kept small to do a specific job. The individual and communities hold the greatest amount of power. If you don't like a community, you can easily move to one you do like, such maybe one that mystic might want. But you aren't forcing other people to do it you see.

So of course, how does the government do what they do today? It's called the general welfare clause. Article 1, section 8. This is the part of the constitution which actually gives congress the power to provide for the general welfare. But, the amendments themselves are what defines the general welfare - as in the preamble it states that part of the purpose is to promote the general welfare. By using this loophole, they have changed it from a document of limited government, to limited rights. As it now thinks it has the power to do anything which can be spun as being for the good. Welfare, healthcare, bail outs, etc. As these things aren't a right, it's given to only special interest groups etc.

But, what if instead of using the general welfare clause, they actually did it the right way. When they banned alcohol, they had to add it to the constitution, because they knew they couldn't do things not listed. Today they just do what they want. But what if you took healthcare and added it as an amendment. Guess what? Automatically applied to everyone, because it is a right. Not a special right, but an equal right for all. I don't think it's a good idea, and is better handled on a community level(I'll explain why), but that is the proper way to do it.

So take the civil rights movement, where the federal government went down to make sure black folks could vote. That is a legitimate function of the government. Peoples rights were being trampled on, they have every right as listed to ensure the citizens is given their rights.

Ok, so why is it better for communities to have the power instead of a federal government? Lets take things just down to a state level. If we have a universal healthcare system, we have 1 system for everyone. That means we have to wait 4-8 years for changes to be made, and we vote on many more issues. As it is only 1 system, if that system is bad, the entire country is made to suffer. It's difficult to try new things because it's so large.

On the state and community level, we suddenly have 50 or more programs going. Each working to be the best. When 1 state screws up, the other 49 don't suffer. When that state screws up, it has 49 other programs to look at for fixes, where as with a federal program, you get nothing. When a program does something good, the other programs can easily adapt to that. Because you don't have all your eggs in 1 basket, you can try more changes, more often and a variety of things at the same time. But there is more.

On a federal level, your 1 vote is against millions and millions. On a state level, your 1 vote makes up a larger % of the vote. You also vote more often. This means you can more easily get changes made. Every 2 years, new vote. If you take that down to a community level, it's even more of a % of the vote. And you can be involved in the local community much more. You can even be a mayor of a town, my grandfather was. The people are able to go directly to the mayor, unlike a president. And as the mayor lives in the town, he is more likely to actually care about it. And if not, you can easily take care of that, without "an act of congress".

By doing so, you return the power to the people. Centralized planning removes the power from the people, and gives it to the elite, who don't care about the individuals. It takes the power away from the people, just like today. The more centralize planning we get, the less freedoms we have.

Under this system, mystic could form the community mystic wants. And we can choose the community we want. I'd personally be more inclined to a free market society, but if mystic wanted a more communal society is allowed and fine. The only thing that isn't allowed is to trample on the basic rights, as then it is the job of the federal government to say no - you can't do that.

I'll be more than happy to go into more detail and answer any questions.

So, BM, you're saying that if a change were to occur, officials sympathetic to 'limited-government' interpretation of the Constitution would need to be elected?

How would one spin a campaign to reap the election, but maintain one's integrity without giving in to special interests? I mean, today massive amounts of money are needed to get the vote, and that includes getting some donations from people or institutions that have that kind of money. If one ran on a platform that seemingly supported certain 'limited-rights' notions, and flipped into an L-G candidate after the elections, those interests would pursue a media campaign discrediting the individual and calling for a recall, censure, or impeachment, would they not?

Thus, an eloquent speaker, with a brazen team of writers and thinkers representing most aspects of the important sectors of society (agriculture, education, healthcare, among others) would need to be on-hand to counter any accusations that the individual is trying to take rights away from the govt. It would be like a one person war, from inside the system. An Army of One.

Originally posted by ProPeace77
So, BM, you're saying that if a change were to occur, officials sympathetic to 'limited-government' interpretation of the Constitution would need to be elected?

How would one spin a campaign to reap the election, but maintain one's integrity without giving in to special interests? I mean, today massive amounts of money are needed to get the vote, and that includes getting some donations from people or institutions that have that kind of money. If one ran on a platform that seemingly supported certain 'limited-rights' notions, and flipped into an L-G candidate after the elections, those interests would pursue a media campaign discrediting the individual and calling for a recall, censure, or impeachment, would they not?

Thus, an eloquent speaker, with a brazen team of writers and thinkers representing most aspects of the important sectors of society (agriculture, education, healthcare, among others) would need to be on-hand to counter any accusations that the individual is trying to take rights away from the govt. It would be like a one person war, from inside the system. An Army of One.

There is only 1 way to read the constitution if you read it as intended. It's a set system of limited government, and unlimited freedoms/liberties as long as you don't infringe on others. The amendment ban on alcohol is clear cut proof it used to work as I mentioned, but has been manipulated.

It's already happening. Just look at the lengths the GOP and the media had to go to put Ron Paul down. He generated more grassroots support, more money and everything over the other candidates, but was literally screwed over by the GOP and MSM. And they end up with a "liberal republican" in McCain, that nobody really wants.

But in doing so, the corruption was exposed. And many people are on to it. I am not talking about the kind of people who visit this site, I am talking about people who were hardcore Bush supporters are waking up in mass going "hey, whats going on".

And now they can't ignore Ron Paul anymore. Especially since he's been right about the economy. While he may not become president, many new congress people are going to be elected. A little known guy in NC beat out the establishment GOP candidate with 70% of the vote, and he wasn't even expected to be close to winning.

reply to post by cetta


I dont think you have understand a bit of that project, it never insisted an a religion and family based society. You made that # up or that is really what you get from all that?
Now i onder how much of the documentary you really understud....

reply to post by mystiq


What interests would you have in that kind of society? Please be onest just curios... others may feel free to answer the question.

Originally posted by karamazov feodor
reply to post by mystiq

 

What interests would you have in that kind of society? Please be onest just curios... others may feel free to answer the question.

Show people the truth and point out the new kind of slavery they have just agreed to.

Those who give up liberty for security will end up with neither. Why? Because the entire ball game is just for you to give up control to another. You can call it a king, a president, a government, a church or anything else you want. But that is what the game is about. And it will always come under the guise of "good" and for the "good of the community". But as with kings, governments and churches of the past, once you give up that control, then it's checkmate because it's just a choice for those with the control to change the direction. You're a fool if you think the venus project is anything other than that.

You were given the divine gift of free will, and you throw it in the trash. Such a pity. I can program something that follows the directions given, and moderate what it "knows". But nobody can make a program that has free will and consciousness to where it can actually learn and truly understand what it means "to be".


[edit on 14-10-2008 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


look badmedia ! the man was always influenced by other man since a society was formed. You do not have a completly free mind when you are living in a society, you are influenced one way or another, by good and bad people, by accident and circumstances that wall add to the general inlfluence of society over your thought. Call it control, call it what you want, i think there is no true control that ca last or overcome and that no one can control absolutely everything.

The thing is, stop talking like someone who thinks he knows everything, and don't make acusations to offend me just because you have a different opinion.

I think that you are happy to be like this, always protesting against something, is what give a reason to feel important, and forget the real thing that you protest against from the begining . If our world would be perfect, people would be bored. The people born in this society that is.

So what gives you the right to bring some unfounded, and opinion based accusations? Especially about something that is not even existing right now, i say lets take care and abolish the disease that had taken over this society, and then we can start a war to another that might follows.

Call me stupid, uneducated, nostalgic, but in my opinion i will rather hope that us humans have no society at all, no technology, no cities, no nothing.... of course, real hard to gave up on all that , peoples are afraid and mad..

reply to post by karamazov feodor


I know it never insisted that... It insisted on the exact opposite.

reply to post by badmedia
BM,It does not matter if Ron Paul becomes president he won't be able to change anything it's the system that is compromised.

reply to post by mike dangerously


But the corruption is a result of the people being mislead and manipulated. So I agree, he could have done alot, and stopped alot as president. But just putting him in as president isn't going to solve the problems. We have to start electing people who actually understand the constitution and such. Which also means the people themselves have to wake up.

reply to post by cosmicpixie


That was the most truthful thing i have herd in a long time!
K.

reply to post by cosmicpixie


I don't believe that religion should be banned, but there was a reason that separation of church and state was made a part of the constution. I believe there is truth in all religions, truth about how man functions and connects with other humans, his environment, and the unseen. But truth is deep and complex; this is why most religious writngs are full of metaphor. Sadly, most people have a concrete way of interpreting it. Religion, interpreted on a concrete level, always implies an elite class (ie., believers), and their right to impose their divinely inspired systems of beliefs on others. It becomes the vehicle for their anger and frustration at the world as it is, and exempts them from responsibility, and also becomes the handle by which political institutions can manipulate them.. I'm remembering a sadly hilarious poster of Geroge W Bush in the rose garden with his hands folded and rays of light from heaven illuminationg his face...Most of us who recieved Judeo-Christan indoctrination as children, including myself (even though I don't consider myself a Christian) have knee jerk responses to references to Satan or Lucifer. Actually, the Bible interpreted concretely, is about a new world order, under Jesus rather than Satan. What a grand way to keep us fighting one another; because if I am on the side of Jesus, and you disagree with me in matters of politics, then of course you must be on the side of You-Know-Who. And we all know what happens to the people on HIS side-and don't they all deserve their fate? And I am merely the instument of His Grand Justice....

reply to post by 1011010110


There was no mention of replacing the outdated obsolete religions with a new one ie. worship of the state. As most here have stated religions had been created by the controllers as a control mechanism to keep the flock in line with the agenda of slavery for the masses with a few elitists at the top reaping the benefits of the toil of those masses. It's so simple to see how this works. You say religion is based on belief ? Well if the religion is false but you believe in it or believe it, then you are false in your belief. Sure you believe it but the basis of the religion is a lie. There is a very real difference between belief and a KNOWING. Anyone can walk up to you and tell you a bald faced lie in an effort to convince you that it is the truth ... some will belive it and be led down a false path, someone with a very highly sensitive BS-O-Meter will KNOW it is false and make the right decision and choose their own path. Wasn't there some place in the gospels where Christ had said something along the lines that YOU are the temple/church and that you will find Christ from within ??? So why the need for religion ? An external construct that has so far demonstrated repeatedly without faltering that it is inherently flawed and leads to conflict. One of my favorite quotes from Yoda in Star Wars was "Train yourself to let go of all you fear to lose." This can applied to religion or just about anything else in a materialistic based mindset.
In this Venus Projects view of their futuristic Utopian world they mentioned that technology would replace the work force ... hmmm ... who is going to maintain that technology when it breaks down ? or replace it with newer tech when it is needed ?
I was over at the DailyPaul forum and I could not believe what I was reading over there ! A bunch of intolerant fundy Christians battling it out in a war of nasty words with a bunch of alleged NWO new ager agents ( the Christians description of said New Agers) about this new film. It was like listening to a bunch of children fighting over a toy or who rules the sandbox !!! Pathetic !!!
I have to admit I was sided with the New Agers because their arguements actually had some merit and made some sense whereas the religious fundies resorted to mudslinging & name calling and rigid dogmatic views.
One point of contention was the idea of this Utopia being hardcore Commie Pinko BS because it eliminated competition ala capitalism. Ant kind of humane society will inevitabley be more socialistic in it's nature because WE ARE social beings ! How hard is that one to figure out ? But they kept tossing mud and insults at each other not realizing that some NWO hack was watching all of this wringing his hands saying ... good good good ... just what we wanted !
Conflict & division is good for us. So it was basically communists or Zeitgeisters/Atheists VS the Capitalists or Fundy Christians. Again really pathetic. I don't totally agree with the technology aspect of the Venuc Project being what in the end will be our saving grace. What technology can do today would be considered Magic in the days of old. What expanded consciousness or super-consciousness can do is the same as what technology can produce ... MAGIC or action at a distance.
The Christians at DailyPaul forum ALL stated that ANYTHING occult is of Lucifer. In the case of the NWO this is true ... they used that universal knowledge for self empowerment. After all it is what one does with knowledge of this kind that determines where it will lead ... down a dark path or the path of light. It was the dark ones who usurped and hid this knowledge for themselves that gave it it's currently bad reputation. Most if not all of the occultic sectret societies were infiltrated and corrupted by the dark ones for their own vehicles to attain their power. This what the rigid religious crowd haven't grokked.

I just registered here, and read the posts, but here is what I have to say bout the whole religion thing.

All of the attempts to disprove and get rid of the religious institutions today aren't going to go away for A WHILE! - There may be countless amounts of evidence that "rationally" deems the intuitions "unacceptable" in this modern age, but in the end scientist and philosophers alike will end up coming to the limitation of understanding, and not being able to fully answer life’s hard questions.

Those hard questions are gonna be around lets face it, and besides even the secular layman is wondering if this life is all there is. If it was truly a FACT, that this life was all there was, then maybe the world would change for the better, maybe for the worse, that’s really not conceivable because of the absurdity of what the "truth" or "reality" really is. And if you have the realism aspect to life, then the "spiritual world" and "after life" isn't in your vocabulary, and you’re probably trying to look for ways to find "heaven on earth" - which looks like the means of anyone trying to create a utopia (Venus project).

It is almost funny because, within a "religious" community or the ones I have looked into, DON'T like religion. - its almost confusing, Muslims have they're "din" and Christians have they're "fellowship through Christ" - but they both believe "religion" is just some man made concept of corruption and that the "lifestyle" or the way you live through Christ or Allah etc. is what it means to be one with God. not whether or not you go to church or read the bible. "relationship is what they preach" and for that - relationship will always be personal, as much as belief, or hope, kinship, - Its completely internal - and when one sees the good things that comes from his/her life - they obviously want to share it with everyone (external)

If you are against religion then you a right there with just about everyone. that is - into the interpretation of what a "religion" is anyway.
I for one aspire for creativity, and don't entirely denounce much because there is always a reason to argue

Religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs. Having a religion is automatic in itself. By getting rid of "religion", you are actually just wanting to dictate what is acceptable to believe.

If you think that is any different than the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition or any different from the bad things you think "religion" does, then you aren't paying attention.

reply to post by cetta


I am an 18 yr old male who happened to stumble upon the zeitgeist addendum through a very knowledgeable friend who delves into popular culture. when I first saw this documentary I did not have a clue as to what it was about not had I ever heard of it before. when I asked my friend to explain all he replied was you just have to watch the movie so I did. as I watched the first 15 to 20 minutes of the movie I started to realize that I had already exposed these economical problems while debating on the subject of economics with my professor who happened to be highly involved in government economics involving the military academies of the united states such as citadel and others. I had brought up the subject of how money is made and had proven to the entirety of the class that money and economics was a fallacy. needless to say my professor only barely passed me for my efforts to decrypt a totally imaginary perspective of value.well I seem to have strayed of the subject so anyways as I watched more of the movie I seemed to realize I have heard these same ramblings of how society and people should be equal . I then realized had came to the same conclusion that you had about these theories, they seemed very communist. now don't get me wrong in a small environment communism can support it self but it can only be for so long until human greed and error come in , this being my personal opinion from my previous studies of cultures and dedicated hours of watching educational documentaries. I feel that yes to a certain extent the Venus project would work such as some smaller colonies of the New England did with a communist based mindset but in order to bring about this drastic of a change 1. people would either be forced against their will 2. a breakdown in the system will always occur given time and human error. 3. as you have already mentioned most of the populace of the world are not nearly intellectually advanced to see this through let alone create it. I would have to say if this was a contain experiment it may work for a sustained period of time but would fall yet again to the inquisitiveness of humans. as humans if I can be partial without the site of a government system we always strive for more and in doing so we cannot accomplish any one task without the sacrifice of another object. so ideally I would love for the zeitgeist addendum to be free of flaws but it would be built in a flawed system which would eventually overcome the greater purpose of the project. as a species and as a part of the anatomical clock of the universe there has to be a beginning and an end to everything.

I like the end product - but not sure how you would get from here to there.
this style of life has no meaning - as if there wasn't enough time to watch TV already... I think its a lazy life doomed for failure...

Originally posted by BornPatriot
I like the end product - but not sure how you would get from here to there.
this style of life has no meaning - as if there wasn't enough time to watch TV already... I think its a lazy life doomed for failure...

It does sound nice. The thing is though, it is and only will be possible when we have unlimited resources. As long as we have limited resources, we will be subject to the laws of supply and demand. To ignore that law would be foolish don't you believe?

People complain about the oil companies for example. But that is one of the main things we spend our money on. We are spending that money on oil because that oil is a limited resources which as a result becomes subject to the laws of supply and demand. Now it may be true that oil companies and others keep the supply low on purpose, to artificially increase the value and that could be true.

And once you get unlimited resources, then the need to manage them disappears as well.