Zeitgeist as a propaganda tool for a New World Order

Originally posted by adjensen
On the other side of the equation, we can point to scholarly research, cultural traditions and historical evidence that refutes the claims made by Graves and Massey. Krishna was born on 25 December to a virgin? Tell that to the 850 million Hindus who seem to think that he was the eighth child of Devaki and Vasudeva, and born in July.

Refuting one detail with the cultural notions of society as a whole is not scholarly research.

Again, the response to Zeitgeist is an emotional reaction not based on any real contradicting evidence.

Originally posted by Scarcer
I've lost interest in arguing with you. Goodbye.

Aw, gee. I was really hoping that you'd actually, you know, provide some evidence for your statements. In the back and forth, I've provided sources, explanations and evidence, you've pretty much said nothing other than "no, that's not what the Venus Project is."

Did you notice this in the OP?

Does that sound familiar? Peering through the rhetoric (and there is a lot of that, including Zeitgeist apologists who are quick to jump on the "what is, is not" misinformation bandwagon,)

Nope, didn't think so.

Call it what you like, apply whatever marketing spin you think will sell it, but it's untenable communism, and a totalitarian technocracy, predicated on technology that doesn't exist and, apparently, won't, until we actually turn over the keys to Peter Joseph, of which there is, fortunately, effectively zero chance of happening.

You've done a stellar job of exemplifying the brainwashing that can result from subscribing to propaganda without applying a reasonable level of critical thought. As that was the intended topic of this thread, I appreciate your input.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by adjensen
On the other side of the equation, we can point to scholarly research, cultural traditions and historical evidence that refutes the claims made by Graves and Massey. Krishna was born on 25 December to a virgin? Tell that to the 850 million Hindus who seem to think that he was the eighth child of Devaki and Vasudeva, and born in July.

Refuting one detail with the cultural notions of society as a whole is not scholarly research.

Again, the response to Zeitgeist is an emotional reaction not based on any real contradicting evidence.

Good grief. This is getting tiresome. There are dozens of papers which refute the claims presented in Zeitgeist, Part One. Kindly provide ANYTHING of a similar nature which supports it, and is NOT D.M. Murdock, or a circular source that points to or from her.

The response to Zeitgeist Part One, from both believers and non-believers, is that it's rubbish, and that is predicated on documented facts, not emotion. A rare case when Christian and atheist find themselves in agreement.

reply to post by adjensen


If I'm wrong I usually accept it, but you fail to provide a compelling argument, using broad assumptions, misinformation and childish acts of sarcasm and 'button pushing.'

I'm not impressed with your approach, nor your argument.

It's apparent that your argument is not very popular on the forums, nor have you succeeded to win me over to your point of view.

I've accepted that I have nothing to gain from arguing with you, and I get bored quick with your argument that lacks relevant substance.

Either accept that no one really cares about the topic you are discussing; or if you can't accept that, then analyze what you are doing wrong so you can either change yourself for the better, or provide far more relevant information regarding TVP and TZM so you can provide a challenging argument that interests the audience.

You claim I display the level of brainwashing that TZM and TVP exposes us to, yet can't bother to break that down and analyze just how we are brainwashed.

"Refuting one detail with the cultural notions of society as a whole is not scholarly research. "
I agree with this remark. You do not seam to know nearly as much as you are attempting to make yourself appear to. One aspect does not reflect the whole system.

If it was brainwashing, I'd expect there to be massive media, governmental and corporate support for TVP and TZM, and we would be well on our way to a far faster transition. At this moment in time, I really so no relation.

You appear to "know what", yet fail to "know-how". You have some 'knowledge on our history, yet appear to not know how TVP will be intended to operate; there for you are using irrelevant historical arguments against TVP and TZM. See where I'm going with this?

Originally posted by adjensen
In the French Revolution, for example, estimates are over a million dead, but less than 20,000 by guillotine, the proscribed end for the elite (along with counter-revolutionaries and political opponents.)

I will give you that. They never get all the exploiters. And many more of the masses are killed than the rich. I would be curious to see "as a percentage of population" how it works out. What percentage of masses vs what percentage of exploiters.

Originally posted by adjensen
Then why has it not been that way in the past? Did the Ukrainian peasant in 1932 really offend society by trying to keep his cow?

This you will have to explain further. I dont follow your logic here in relation to what I said. I said, that if a transfer from a profit based system to a resource based system were to occur now, it would be the "haves" who used violence to prevent it. They COULD just agree to switch systems, but they wouldnt they would fight.

Im not sure what that has to do with the guy and his cow. I guess if the guy decided his cow was worth starting a war, yes, it would be the same. Im not a communist. I dont advocate communism. It does not "fit" with human nature. You need a system in which competition is recognized and rewarded. It just does not have to be with money. There were two economists years ago who wrote a book in which the "currency" that people worked for was the respect of their people. (Much like in tribal societies) I dont think money and material things are the only things that motivate people, and even the corporatists recognize that praise is as effective as a raise.

Communism in trying to keep everyone equal doesnt fit with human nature at all. And it de-incentivizes people. I am all for the guy keeping his cow. Just not for the guy owning a dairy. At least not in absolute terms. If he works the dairy well, let him have total control. But if he doesnt, his ownership should not keep those resources from benefiting humanity. I have only watched that one film on Zeitgeist, and I will not defend it universally. I think they are mistaken about human nature to some degree, and I think they are as you pointed out, overly focused on the slave labor of machines, but I think the underlying shift to allocating resources based on problem solving is brilliant, and I think that alone would create an enormous shift in human happiness.

I firmly believe the system we have now is bad for humanity. It forces us to breed towards greater violence and brutality, not greater intelligence. I think we should skew things so that we werent such a "survival of the bloodiest" society to something more in line with what Jesus was preaching.

Originally posted by adjensen
Actually, no it wasn't. Not at first. Study the early years of the Soviet Union -- the capitalistic aspects of ................

I didnt mean to get specifically into the USSRs history, but I will look into it. I was basically trying to point out that profit was still a motive in that system, only the fruits or profits (like the ownership of capital itself) were held in common.

It differs, (as I see it) from the Zeitgeist movement in that in the Zeitgeist movement profit is not the point. Solving the problem is the point. Its not about creating surpluses, either to be hoarded or shared in common. It doesnt mean surpluses will not happen, but it does mean that the goal of the society is not the creation of more for the sake of more. Which both communism and capitalism were. In the first, it was for the good of all, (theoretically) in the second for the good of the owners of capital.

I would not be for a system that merely went from capitalist to communist. There would be no point in that. Ultimately, even though it would address inequity in society, (assuming it could be made to work) it would not address the problem with how human beings are living on the planet more generally.

Originally posted by Scarcer
I'm not impressed with your approach, nor your argument.

Well, I'm not particularly surprised, so no worries.

It's apparent that your argument is not very popular on the forums, nor have you succeeded to win me over to your point of view.

Life is not a popularity contest, and I don't really care if you change your mind or not. The purpose of these forums is to stimulate discussion on topics and provide facts that are related to the topic at hand. Threads may die and be of little worth, or they may be resources for people researching a topic, now and in the future.

Someone who comes across this thread will, hopefully, learn something about the nature of the Zeitgeist films, the dishonest or incompetent approach taken to, at least, Part One of the first movie, and the disingenuous and contradictory nature of the rest of it -- appealing to those who fear a New World Order, in order to have a basis to establish a New World Order of their own. There is a very specific reason that I posted this thread in this sub-forum, not in, say, the forum on Conspiracies in Religion.

For your side, they will see that when tough questions are answered, such as the means by which the economic structure of the world is changed, in one fell swoop, or how technology that doesn't exist can be developed in the chaotic morass that at least one of you predicts, or how people will be motivated to suddenly work for the common good, when millions of years of evolution have produced a human nature that is directly contrary to that, those questions go unanswered with a smarmy dismissal of "you don't understand what the Venus Project is all about."

Yes, I do understand. In spending time talking to Zeitgeist zealots and in reading the papers and posts that are associated with both the Venus Project and resource based economies in general, an overwhelming sense emerges -- young idealists, ignorant of economics, political science, psychology and history, being led by old idealists, who may or may not be ignorant, but who take advantage of their followers' lack of education by selling them a bill of goods that cannot possibly work.

Who benefits? The leaders, obviously. In the present, they have income, attention and a sense that their perspective is valid. Even if it's nothing more than mere ego-stroking, don't discount the value of it. And if this thing ever worked out, you can be certain that there would be a human hierarchy that makes decisions, and it would be these people, not you. Morals, values, decisions -- they would no longer come from society, but from the technocratic elite who will determine that what's best for mankind is best for you, even if that means your immediate death.

Don't say it wouldn't happen, because it has, repeatedly.

I should probably explain that part of the reason that I am so vehemently opposed to a system such as you propose, and why I keep going back to its most obvious predecessor, the Soviet Union, is because a long time ago, when I was in Graduate School, one of my professors was one of the leading scholars in the study of famine, specifically famine as a political weapon, and even more specifically, famine in the Soviet Union. So I got to spend a lot of time studying what happened, how it happened, and what it would take to have it happen again.

It began with idealists who lacked an understanding of economics, believing that Marx was wrong, and communism could be established from feudalism without the intermediary step of capitalism. The idealists took advantage of a war and Tsar weary public, rode on their backs to political victory, and established a crushing totalitarian regime that effectively dehumanized the population in order to achieve their means.

History shows that the price paid by those millions was without value -- the centralized, planned economy is not efficient, it is not sustainable, and it requires a level of control that eventually results in the violent suppression of the populace. Central planning lasted as long as it did, not because it was a workable idea, but because of the ruthless governance, combined with the willingness to compromise the core beliefs when they became untenable and risked loss of control for those in power.

If Lenin had not established the NEP in 1921, which re-introduced capitalism, there would have been riots in the streets and the Bolsheviks would have been out of power within a short time.

If it was brainwashing, I'd expect there to be massive media, governmental and corporate support for TVP and TZM, and we would be well on our way to a far faster transition. At this moment in time, I really so no relation.

You don't seem to understand what brainwashing is, and how it is effective. It begins with a mind that already wants to believe what is being preached. People don't join cults because they are bored or looking for poker buddies or something -- they seek answers that they believe the group has. And when they get the answers, it doesn't really matter if they are valid or not.

The media, government and corporations, along with pretty much everyone who has something to lose in a centralized economy (which, again, extends down to the lowly peasant with one cow) has no interest in the answers that the Venus Project provides, so, the target market, if you will, is the young disaffected idealist, who doesn't like the state of the world, hates the injustice and wants to do something. Oh, and who has nothing to lose.

It is a subtly different version of "workers of the world, unite!", but it's effectively the same thing.

One sign of brainwashing is the blind devotion to specific people -- my subtle, and eventually not so subtle, digs at the person of Peter Joseph were intended to elicit such a response, as they did. Another is the suspension of critical thought -- the whole "ignore history" and "this is different than communism" and "technology will solve the problem" are indications of this. You have no valid basis for such claims, because if you understood the fundamental problem and thought it through, you'd see that there really aren't any. Frankly, you'd be better off saying "okay, it is communism, but here is how we will not repeat the errors of the past", because then at least you'd be thinking.

So, either you are following fools, who lead you, Pied Piper like, into a world that is unfeasible at best, but more likely an utter disaster, or you are following people who realize the impracticality of their design, and are using you and your fellow idealists to achieve something that they could not on their own -- power.

I do wish to make one thing perfectly clear, though. I do not believe that our current system is an ideal one, nor do I believe that efforts to improve things are futile or valueless. And I don't discount the tremendous value of idealism -- I was an idealist for quite some time. But, eventually, as it does for most people, reality sets in, pragmatism emerges, and I set aside aspirations for the "ideal" society, and accepted the "real" society, and THEN began to look for ways of I could personally improve it.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by adjensen
Then why has it not been that way in the past? Did the Ukrainian peasant in 1932 really offend society by trying to keep his cow?

This you will have to explain further. I dont follow your logic here in relation to what I said. I said, that if a transfer from a profit based system to a resource based system were to occur now, it would be the "haves" who used violence to prevent it. They COULD just agree to switch systems, but they wouldnt they would fight.

Im not sure what that has to do with the guy and his cow.

Here's the point -- both theoretical and practical, along with the piece that separates them. Theoretically, the cow is a resource. It is an asset, which produces something, so it's not the same thing as a dog or a cat. Within the centralized economy, the cow needs to be accounted for and needs to be productive, since it's eating grass, drinking water, and so on.

Now, for the peasant that takes care of it, he needs the cow to produce enough milk, cream, butter and cheese to sustain his family and, if it's the sole source of income, make enough surplus to sell in order to buy the other necessities of life. If the peasant is ambitious, he may go get another cow, and the proceeds of that cow are mostly profit, because his family's needs have been met by the first cow. This is a positive thing, because not only does it increase the food supply, but it is more efficient, because taking care of two cows is not double the work of taking care of one. In addition, the peasant is now buying products with his profits that he wouldn't have otherwise, which helps the producers of those products. That's under capitalism.

In a pure centralized economy (for which we would have to look to the pre-NEP Soviet era, or the idealized Venus Project "grocery store",) the peasant doesn't have a cow, he just works at the state owned dairy. When he needs anything, whether it be cheese or bread or an iPod, he just goes up the shops, takes what he needs and leaves. Here, we have removed the incentive for him to be ambitious. In many ways, we've removed the incentive for him to be productive at all. This is one of the fundamental failings of communism (see my earlier post regarding the productivity of state owned and managed agricultural land, versus privately held.)

What separates theoretical from practical is human nature, the result of evolution. Think of degrees of importance to a person as concentric circles. For most people (not all, obviously,) the innermost circle is themselves. We all tend to think pretty highly of ourselves, work in our own best interests, and want to preserve our own existence. Next out is usually immediate family -- Mom, Dad, wife, husband, kids. From there, extended family, close friends, acquaintances, the local community, the nation and the world. If your kid is starving, that's seemingly a greater injustice than a kid starving 10,000 km away, even though it's the same thing, but as a result, you're going to be more motivated to save your own child than a stranger.

That's part one of the problem of human nature. The second, also a result of evolution, is that human nature tends to favour getting the best results for the least amount of effort. Colloquially, we are inherently greedy and lazy (again, a generalization, but remember that collectivization requires universal membership, so you can't just pick out the altruistic and ambitious people and say "see, it does work.") So, if you go up the shops and there is bread in stock, and there wasn't the last time that you were there, if there are no rules, you'll likely take more than you really need, because you don't want to run out again.

Now, for the guy with the cow in the Ukraine, here was the problem. The NEP gave him the cow, along with the ability to profit from what he was able to produce with the cow. Productivity went up, the peasants started having a fair existence, and then collectivization returns. There are hungry people in Moscow and Leningrad, and we've all these fat peasants out in the countryside (Kulaks,) so let's take from them and give to the urbanites. Not "let's take the surplus", which would be bad enough, but "let's take it all." Suddenly the peasant found himself not only without any profit, but without the means to feed his own family, and the food that the inefficient state farms was producing was going to the cities, not him.

Faced with the starvation of himself and his immediate family, under the auspices of "working for the common good", you can likely see why the peasants revolted.

The inherent difficulty of a system like the Venus Project proposes is the same -- it is a fight against human nature, millions of years in the making.

I firmly believe the system we have now is bad for humanity. It forces us to breed towards greater violence and brutality, not greater intelligence. I think we should skew things so that we werent such a "survival of the bloodiest" society to something more in line with what Jesus was preaching.

I think that, apart from a few connections between what is being proposed, what is practical and what has been demonstrated to be a failure, we're largely on the same page.

It differs, (as I see it) from the Zeitgeist movement in that in the Zeitgeist movement profit is not the point. Solving the problem is the point. Its not about creating surpluses, either to be hoarded or shared in common.

I hope that I've demonstrated above the motivation and benefit of personal profit.

I would not be for a system that merely went from capitalist to communist. There would be no point in that.

Actually, if we had a different human nature, pure communism, without a hint of capitalism, would likely be the most efficient and egalitarian system that we could produce. If everyone truly worked to the best of their abilities out of the simple joy of doing so, only took what they needed from an endless supply, and we were managed by a benevolent and unselfish ruler who had supreme knowledge, understanding and compassion, that would be ideal.

Ironically, this is what many Christians view as the Kingdom of God, the rule of Christ in the final age, and exactly what the Zeitgeist crowd tells us is malarky.

Originally posted by adjensen


Yes, I do understand. In spending time talking to Zeitgeist zealots and in reading the papers and posts that are associated with both the Venus Project and resource based economies in general, an overwhelming sense emerges -- young idealists, ignorant of economics, political science, psychology and history, being led by old idealists, who may or may not be ignorant, but who take advantage of their followers' lack of education by selling them a bill of goods that cannot possibly work.

For the record, I majored in philosophy, and minored in business. Now a lot of people think philosophy is about airy fairy things like "the meaning of life" and it is. But its also Platos Republic, and The Wealth Of Nations, and basically every single thing our economic and political theory is built upon.

I just want to say, our economic system is no less a bunch of delusional people being led by people ignorant of economics, political science, psychology and history. The "leaders" are crashing the system because they failed to understand the basics of Smiths economic system and they have done everything possible to subvert its workings.

So, I just wanted to say, the proof is in the pudding. You may be right than many of those interested in the Zeitgeist, especially those who accept it in whole, without reservations and criticism, are ignorant. But MANY in business and economics are similarly ignorant.

Economic theory contains a lot of math, and so one studying it by rote, sheer memorization, who is not werll versed in the underlying philosophy and trained in analysis, might be fooled into thinking it is a "hard science." Based on something real and objective. This is not the case at all. In logic, you can use perfectly valid logical form and arrive at untrue answers if you begin the equation with false assumptions. Which is precisely the problem with modern economics. They basically throw all manner of rubbish into the calculation, and then try to pretend that because they followed good form, their conclusions are true.

Garbage in, garbage out.

They are using the form to justify the answers they want, they are not using the form to arrive at answers that are objectively true.

Just wanted to point that out. There is a reason a very good system, and free market capitalism under the right circumstances is a very good system, went so tragically awry. Much of what happened could have been avoided if only we had disallowed the corporate form. Once we created it, (and take note that it is created completely by regulation,) regulations were needed to rebalance the system. The problem was that those who kinda sorta understand economics just blindly call for deregulation, without understanding that Smiths system was not totally opposed to regulation. Only that it should be Occam's razorish and the minimum to do the job. His system had a regulator, (a king) who was in theory not up for sale like politicians in a democracy.

If you dont understand WHY things were supposed to be as they are, you cant know what needs to be adjusted when you change portions of the recipe. The system we have now isnt a free market in any sense of the word, it is one in which small competitors (including labor) are shackled and unfairly regulated, and monopolists and oligopolists are making the rules. Not surprisingly in their own favor. Just like economic theory predicts they will.

So thats my rant on economics and idealism.

The people promoting this current system often have no freaken idea what they are talking about. Their understanding of economics is skin deep, like a sunburn, and it comes in many cases from people who are equally uninformed as to the fundamental philosophy and logic underlying economic theory.

Thanks op ...just wanted to mark this thread and use it later if it is needed