*The ‘Zeitgeist Movement’ = most hardcore NWO propaganda ever.

Posted: December 30, 2009 in 2009, Exclusives
Tags: , ,

Recently I started a huge debate thread on this matter over at ATS. Of course many ZM’ers tred to step up and not only could they not quite extinguish really any of my talking points, but they also couldn’t answer the hard questions about setting up this system that arose later in the thread. Tonight I reworked the outline, and posted it over at the official ZM forums. Let’s see if they don’t delete it and ban me…

What I wrote in case they do delete it:

Hello. I’m here to challenge. When I look over the talking points of this movement I see the same old things I’ve been observing with the ‘NWO’ agenda. I figure since these critiques exist outside of here it’d be best to have you guys explain this (confusion?). Thing is this board seems to have a bad reputation for deleting critical posts and banning critical posters. I hope thats not the case, as it would seem to confirm the allegations I’m about to post.

Before my NWO list I’d like to highlight the questions I have for you all that will follow this…

The “Zeitgeist Movement” and cosponsor “Venus Project” are a most hardcore front in the New World Order / Neo-Communist / Neo-Eugenicist-Transhumanist agenda, whether witting or not.

They call for:

1. Global Government.

2. AI Automatons replacing humans as workers.

3. AGI (‘Skynet’) Supercomuters controlling most aspects of politics and society, including rationing global resources to global citizens. If they actually thought this out they’d know that soon enough machines will need more resources than humans.

4. A Utopian Agenda that “Peter” claims isn’t Utopian, yet the ‘research institute’ even describes itself as being Utopian / Futurist. History proves that all forced utopias become dystopias.

5. Selfish Transhumanist agenda.

6. Cashless (non-backed by Gold/etc) economic system. A ‘Resource Economy’ has been tried before… in the Soviet Union.

7. Population Control. To meet these targets as policy sounds like a slippery slope to me.

8. The global government run by a global ‘god-on-earth’ AGI computer network to replace all world religions.

QUESTIONS:
Even if you might dismiss the context of my outline above, please answer these questions:

A: How could the ZM be implemented without a totalitarian regime to enforce it? Don’t forget the idea of the ZM is that its to be global in scale.

B: How is it any different than Communism?

C: What about private property rights? What is PJ and JF’s views on this? What is yours?

D: Who will pay for it initially?

E: What about the jobs robots can’t replace? And who decides who gets the crappy jobs or the good jobs?

F: Are there ANY comparable historical examples of this system in history that worked?

G: What evidence exists to support the idea fo the Resource Economy, that is the “abundance” part that is crucial to the feasibility of the utopia.

H: Do you truly believe that there is any one size fits all approach to the entire globe and all of its social systems?

I: How can you have an all powerful, global scale system of the greatest power ever considered, totally centralized, and expect that this thing representing an elite cabal would ever give up said power, no matter what or who has this power? And please spare me, we’re talking about the global management of the entire earth and its resources. The ZM is no less subject to how things work out in practice historically, than is the USA, or am I mistaken??

[b]J: What about transition??
Explain to me the transition! My argument is that it would take tyranny just to maintain it. And how do you transition it in without dictatorial tyranny? How many decades would it take. What suffering is this goal worth to get there? Has anyone actually thought this experiment all the way thru? [/b]

K: Explain the transition to this idea that nobody will have to work anymore, please.

L: How can you promise that this system wouldnt calculate its numbers, in order for the utopia to work, and decide that major population numbers wouldnt need to be exterminated?

M: After handing all power over to the AI god global computer network, how can you promise that it wont decide that all humans wont need to be turned into compost?

N: How does PJ make the jump from the tyranny of the Federal Reserve system as being the problem, to money period as the problem to be eliminated?

O: Explain how we ‘get rid of’ ‘money’. Will there not be a ‘credits’ sort of system? If there is, how is this different than money? No ‘monetary units’ whatsoever? If not, please explain the model.

That should be all. I hope we get to discuss all of this, as it would have to be pretty embarrassing for you if this gets deleted. I mean, if you can’t openly address criticisms then it already proves this system is no different than Stalinism.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Jordan Seymour says:

    A. We do live in a totalitarian state, controlled by america that does as it pleases, and keeps the majority of the worlds population and a large share of its national population in poverty.

    B. To categorise your political views as communism, facism etc. is a very generalised way to do things. People have different views on different issues, so to try and group it all under one umbrella term is very naive. I like the ideas zm puts forward and I can see how it is similar to communist ideology. But its very silly to work under the idea of communism bad, capitalism good. They both have good and bad points and the trick is trying to filter out the bad, which I think the zm has done well.

    C. frankly there should be a limit. Excess makes me sick. When you look at people starving with out shelter in the third world and even on british council estates and american trailer parks, and then to see their so called ‘countrymen’ disgustingly fat with several homes, and people working for them (the ownership of someones wages = ownership of their survival = ownership of the person = slavery), frankly I think ownership needs a limit. I know what I’m about to say is excessive but, the end goal of ownership, is ownership of the world or world domination.

    D. Not going to lie thats complicated, but isn’t the question ‘ do we have the resources?’

    E. Again not an easy question to answer, maybe as a society have to think more like the amish (helping each other out for the greater good) than the selfish manner that we do at the moment. Also if a lot of jobs are no longer necessary, therefore lots of people free to do what little is there, many hands normally make light work.

    F. What I like about this question is, with a planet in recession, if i was critising another idea too be as broad as it won’t work seems hypocritical. THE WHOLE WORLD WAS IN RECESSION, how can you suggest that this is working. Maybe it’s time to try something new.

    G. Unless I’ve misunderstood the question its basic math.
    Abundunce is more than what is actually needed, therefore if there is abundunce there should be no reeason for poverty anything caused by poverty.

    H. Maybe, maybe not. If you try to you should at least end up with something better than before even if you fall short, and then you can re-evalute and start from a better postion than before.

    I a. I’m not sure what your getting at, you seem to have got a bit carried away with bias terms against the idea so I’ve gotten a bit lost as to what you mean.

    b.again I don’t have all the answers I’m sure it would be difficult, but you’ve added your own opinion on what you think would happen without any basis, your just using generalisations again. Dictatorial tyranny this time, if the chief architect of a building is hard on his staff is he a dictatorial tyrant.

    K. A lot of people are in the situation that they can’t work the moment as there are no jobs available, and therefore cannot afford to survive, does that work. But then they are given welfare (AAAAAAAAAH communism!). Hundreds of years ago the majority of the work was in agriculture, now with thanks to technology such as the combine harverster, more food can be produced with a significantly downsized workforce. I don’t know exactly how things can work but back then I bet the idea of so few people producing so much food seemed unlikely. I imagine it would be a case of a lot less work needing to be done, and many hand make light work.

    L You’ve got really carried away here. Populations being exterminated? However That’s done currently in the system we have, directly through constant war, and indirectly through poverty. And if you look at average amount of children had by a family in MEDC’s next LEDC’s ou will see MEDC’s have far fewer children, (i suspect because they don’t die before the age of five, and they don’t need to send them out to work for little money needed to survive), so I imagine on this basis that taking countries out of poverty should result in a lower population.

    M. too many sci fi films, saturated by your biases (AI ‘god’) not a credible way to present an arguement.

    N. It’s not really a huge jump, its aactually a fairly obvious one. He has pointed out the flaws in the fractional reserve practice of MONEY, and made the point that, nevermind the system with abundunce money isn’t necessary at all, even if it wasn’t being managed in a corrupt way.

    O. what about the transition? who will pay for this? explain how we get rid of money? that is the same question re worded. Personally I don’t think it is necessary to get rid of money all together (at least right away), but initially the way in which it is managed needs to be. It currently does not represent commodities in the system, and therefore has rules that don’t make sense, making the economic system comparable to a board game.

    • ignoranceisntbliss says:

      B. I argue that ZM is the most pure and hardcore form of communism ever proposed. You might want to see my extended arguments in that thread, if the little Stalinists havent already deleted it (they banned me despite no profanity etc. no explaination). The core of communism is centrally controlled dictatorship, and thats exactly what ZM stands for. All they’ve done is apply nice words as they describe each item if discussion, not one of which is actually new. They’ve carefully woven together communism and transhumanism, a combined concept which is itself not even new and written about by transhumanist authors for quite some time. The system we have is already bad enough… the system from 20 years ago was already bad enough. Today between ZM, the UN, the environmentalists, multinational corporations, neoconservatives, and so on is the ultimate diabolical hybridization of the worst parts of extreme capitalism and communism. ZM leans to the ‘left’ obviously. I want the extreme of neither.

      C: Sounds good, your words, but the ZM solution is for central dominance of the entire globe and all of its resources. Even if we hand all power over to the machines, which is inherent in the ZM model, humans WILL still be doing WORK. So the fat cats capital switches over to the ‘human capital’ as described by classical communist systems.

      D: Do we? How much resources will it take to build an entire robot army ready to take care of all of the needs of 7++ billion humans? Sure they can fill majority of the interior of a factory, but when its time for ‘service’ jobs good luck.

      E: Sure. But who decides who does what jobs? This little issue lightly brushes on a core theme that inherently proves ZM will have to become not only a dictatorship but a tyrannical one. For the system to work EVERYONE has to willingly take part. If half the population doesnt agree with the economic model then the system fails. A portion of the population functions as a black market and the system fails. Et al. The transition phase of ZM would be so long and drawn out, good luck getting ALL people to follow instruction core to ZM’s success.

      F: Read my site. The Great Recession is deliberate and by design, largely in part by tranhumanist elitists.

      G: Please do provide documentation that demonstrates the feasibility of this so-called abundance. When you understand economics, economies of scale, and the law of decreasing gains, along with many other realities, this utopian concept seems quite unrealistic. And, the burden of proof of such possibility lays on ZM to explain. Another problem is, like many other facets of ZM, if the abundance isn’t reality, then the utopia cannot exist.

      H: This is a argument we typically hear from environmentalists. Read “State of Fear”. There’s a great deal of history related to Yellowstone Park, the worlds first federally protected land. From day one, over 100 years ago, the place has been a test bed for environmentalist tinkering, and has a long drawn out history of one disaster after another. An ongoing theme in the book is, ‘the best intentions can bring the worst and most unecessary results when misguided’.
      In PJ’s ZM he shows what destroyed the world (the privately owned tyrannical Federal Reserve and fiat banksterism), yet the solution becomes not get rid of them but instead go to full out communism.

      I: “Bias” terms? That’s exactly what it is thru and thru. But my question was how could you ever expect it to give up its power if it proved erroneous (which is inevitable)?

      J: No basis? Look at history. The basis is in the historical view of these ideas in practice. The burden of proof is for ZM to thoroughly explain how things would be different, not merely just SAY it wouldn’t be ‘evil’… or rest the assurance on other sketchy ideas that themselves have to claim will turn out different this time. The FACT is the system would have to be enforced to even be able to function, or to not topple once instituted. Half the people out there will never submit. This will require police / military. ZM’s concept goes right out the window if there will in fact be police / military. And when the eventual sure to happen period comes that the system has outlived its usefulness, it will NOT give up its power easily. Especially since it wont even be humans in charge, instead it will be machines who will already by then view humans as the greatest threat to resources… THEIR resources.

      L: Not really. Its the inherent climax of the system. The utopia as described has almost no chance of success will this many people, needing that much energy and robots to function as their slaves. And in the immediately looming years as more and exceedingly sophisticated life extension technologies become reality and humans live much much longer this outcome will only become more on the brink. This trend is already on the move with elitist humans still in control.

      Or the machines tally up the resources (that they or it can observe and track) and decide that eventually not enough of x resource will be around in the future therefore it must be limited now. Then in 10 years it turns out that machine was wrong.

      I dont think you actually answered my question. Let me rephrase it: What if the machines tally up the numbers and decides that 8 billion humans is too many, and there needs to be only 1 billion for the utopia to exist?

      M: All seeing, all knowing, near-infinite in exponential progression, all powerful… all key characteristics of a ‘god’.

      N: PJ failed miserably to show how the concept of TRADE can ever be undone. He did a stellar job of showing how factional reserve, or more directly: FIAT money is sinisterly flawed, etc. Then shifts over to all the sudden money is as they say ‘the root of all evil’ (except PJ staunchly opposes even using the word evil in even a conceptual sense), and that ‘money’ must be eliminated. Money merely represents the value of goods or services, to simplify trade. They mysteriously have little details I’ve witnessed deeply explaining how trade will cease, other than saying robot slaves will do all of our work. With machines smarter than us good luck getting them to be happy slaves. And for machines to do our jobs, ALL of our jobs more efficiently they will have to be more agile and more intelligent than us, otherwise the system will be forced to determine that the best use of resources would be for humans to do the work outside the factory, and so on.

      O: The CORE (I repeat: CORE) of the ZM is no money, no trade. …everything provided for by the the AI overlord system that is in total control of virtually every facet of our lives. It has to be in control of every facet of our lives to ensure that PRECIOUS resources arent being wasted by anyone. It WILL have to monitor every facet of the earth (including our lives) in order to calculate where resources are being used and ‘wasted’ etc with any degree of accuracy.

  2. Jordan Seymour says:

    Transhumanist. didn’t know what that meant. looked it up and I’m lost as to the problem with it. P.S really hope you respond, however I wish try a steer clear of adding in too much of your own biases(‘SELFISH’ Transhumanist)it’s unecessarily imposing, you’ve got some fair good arguments that are not in need of it. (sorry if I come off patronising)

    • ignoranceisntbliss says:

      That’s odd. Since thats where most of ZM’s ideas come from either directly or by extrapolating them, it should be that most ZM’ers know all about transhumanism. But the slickness of the NWO propaganda has it conditioning newcomers to adopt transhumanist ideals without even knowing directly about them. ZM does the same thing in many other important arenas, such as by training people to embrace a technocratic global government (dictatorship) that harnesses irrational environmentalist policies sure to harm human quality of life.

      Transhumanism is selfish everywhere except perhaps in a pure and completely successful ZM outcome. In every other outcome of human affairs it is deeply selfish. Its the reality where those with augmentation implants and so on make ordinary humans obsolete in just about every setting. The liberty transhumanists seek is sure to harm the liberty and well being of others. In fact, it promises social meltdown like has never before been contemplated. Perhaps ZM may be the only solution to such an outcome, but when it itself represents a communistic global dictatorship like has hardly ever been proposed before, it shows how screwed we all are.

  3. Marc says:

    I will not dismiss the context of your outline, and later on I will get to answering your questions. First, let me address the assumptions of your analysis with my observations. Please feel free to provide feedback. I include your statements then answer them in the following sentences.

    1. Global Government. Yes, the global government is the planet itself. I’ll say that again, our earth is our government; a global computerized system would be implemented not to limit, withhold, or advance some secret elite cause, but to explore, quantify, and expand on existing planetary resources for you and me. This would allow us all to understand what we have and how we can use those resources. A tremendous amount of waste is being produced by current construction methods, agricultural policies purposely destroy food to keep prices up, commercial products are built not to be recycled but to be sent to landfills that destroy possibilities for potential resources and land. There is no accountability for such inefficiencies in the current paradigm. Political, corporate, and militaristic or any other systems of dominance are destructive, wasteful, and inefficient in dealing with the earth’s capital and would have no basis for existence. The basis and motivation of the global system is first and foremost to meet every human being’s biological needs (clean air, abundant food, clean water, the best in medical care, adequate rest, etc.)

    2. AI Automatons replacing humans as workers. To a certain extent automatons have already been integrated into society (automated automotive factories, call centers, traffic lights, ATM machines, escalators, elevators) unfortunately these technologies aren’t expanded upon to true social necessities (automated gmo/pesticide free agriculture, automated desalinization plants to eliminate water scarcity, automated construction to eliminate unnecessary deaths of workers, automated transportation system to eliminate the hundreds of thousands systematically killed in traffic accidents annually).

    3. AGI (‘Skynet’) Supercomuters controlling most aspects of politics and society, including rationing global resources to global citizens. If they actually thought this out they’d know that soon enough machines will need more resources than humans. First of all, SKYNET is from the Hollywood movie Terminator and has absolutely no basis in this system. As far as controlling most aspects of politics and society, there are no politics. For the most part politicians are elitist, self interested bureaucrats that serve the established powers instead of the people and have no basis in the aims of the ZM VP movement. Reverting to the word control, what do you define by control? I would make the argument that machines controlling certain aspects of society are great in that they ease stress and make our lives easier. For example machines perform the tasks of cultivating our crops, directing traffic, maintaining internet functionality, maintaining a comfortable temperature in our homes, providing life support for sick persons, advising us of any problems with our automobiles. I understand the term “control” automatically raises hairs, but you have to look at the motivation behind such processes, human efficiency and well being. The ZM and VP look to expand on all these technologies that assist human beings in everyday life. There is no benefit in creating a divisive society of elitist technocrats and manipulated masses, this is a myth that we are tagged with supporting simply because we advocate technology to solve social problems. The internet is technology, let’s keep it in perspective please. When you say rationing global resources what do you mean by this? This implies that there is a scarcity in the system to begin with. Remember we are trying to move away from scarcity to abundance so that we do not have the rationing that currently exists in today’s system, and technology will help us achieve this (i.e. more advanced forms of cultivating crops and harvesting water). I agree with you that machines would need (as they do now) more resources than humans. However, what is your conclusion? When you say resources do you imply food and water, if you do, mind you that machines don’t consume such resources, they consume resources like petroleum and solar radiation which cannot be processed by the human body. Machines perform more work than humans and require more energy input as a result, but that doesn’t imply humans will suffer from this use of energy from machines. If anything we benefit from it because we have the ability to transform other forms of energy (heat, sunlight, garbage) into ones we can immediately use (food, electric heating, services). Collectively, plants and trees consume massive amounts of solar energy, exponentially far more energy than humans do. However, we consume another order of energy, we don’t necessarily compete with them because we aren’t wired to directly “eat” or “drink” solar radiation, just like machines don’t eat hamburgers and don’t suffer from human starvation. If what you said implied something else, I’m sorry. But its not so much that machines would need more resources than humans (this is a competitive connotation), it’s the idea that machines will harness many and different types of resources for humans to use.

    4. A Utopian Agenda that “Peter” claims isn’t Utopian, yet the ‘research institute’ even describes itself as being Utopian / Futurist. History proves that all forced utopias become dystopias. History may very well show that, I actually don’t know, but I’m a bit confused as to the claim of describing themselves as being Utopian. Please cite where that is admitted. If anything in Zeitgeist Addendum Jacque Fresco does admit this isn’t Utopian at all, Peter Joseph in one of his lectures also admits this isn’t Utopian. I’ll be glad to cite you where I found those, but where did you get that? The only statement said anywhere near that is something like “its not utopian but it’s a hell of a lot better.” This is true.

    5. Selfish Transhumanist agenda. I don’t know why you think any of this as selfish? Please elaborate. I haven’t read any books on the transhumanist movement however I did look into the definition and it says something like advocating technologies and methods that improve and go beyond human capacities. If there is a political, militaristic, economical, or other establishment motivation behind transhumanism, forgive me I am not aware of it but such establishment motives would completely contradict the ideas of the ZM and VP. However, we are all transhumanists by the very definition. The moment we use eyeglasses, the internet, cars, cell phones, shovels, computers, shoes, perform surgeries, etc. We are implementing technologies that go beyond our original capacities (we go inside cars to get to a location faster than if we walked, we are a part of that machine in the meantime.) I’m sure you wouldn’t label anyone who got a synthetic hip replacement, hearing aid, or a pacemaker or a contact lense or even a voice machine (i.e. Stephen Hawking) as a proponent of some transhumanist agenda aimed at destroying humanity. But neither should you call the ZM or VP that either, because we support technology for those ends just described. We support the ability to use technology for disabled individuals and even able individuals to improve quality of life in civilization.

    6. Cashless (non-backed by Gold/etc) economic system. A ‘Resource Economy’ has been tried before… in the Soviet Union. If that was the case in the soviet union, they did a horrible job and history has shown the end result of that. They instituted banks, military-social dominance, politics, rationing of resources, monopolistic industrial establishments focused on creating warplanes, tanks, bombs, soldiers and institutionalized schooling that wasn’t interested in studying the natural world but a nationalistic fundamentalism based on maintaining the state’s affairs. The Zeitgeist movement and the Venus Project are completely opposed to such directions. We want to create a world without those backward ideologies. The earth currently functions as a resource based economy, for example plants don’t rely on money or gold to process their own food, they inherently use a technical process called photosynthesis to form sugars by harnessing solar energy. This provides food for animals, in turn animals serve as food for other animals, decomposing animals serve as food to bacteria which in turn nurture the soil and create an environment for new plants to grow again. You get the point, im sure. The natural world deals with resources in real time, not a dollar bill or credit card that is vulnerable to inflation, deflation, compound interest, and other bullshit abstract constructs. The Earth balances its own budget. The planet only allows a certain amount of life to flourish dependant on the amount of resources and stabilizing systems in place in a given area. Our earth is a food/resource web. It is in our best interest to understand these technical processes and utilize them for our own needs. We also want to expand on the earth’s abilities to provide sustenance by using human technologies based on the natural world for the good and health of all of us. Yes the earth also has destructive tendencies (earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis) but we would develop technologies to overcome those events and maintain sustainability, efficiency and abundance.

    7. Population Control. To meet these targets as policy sounds like a slippery slope to me. If I don’t communicate this well I’ll try again later but I’ll start with an analogy. You know how restaurants, stadiums, theatres, or any social conventions have a sign posted somewhere that says maximum capacity? This isn’t to control anybody per se or take away their freedom, its more of a management issue to ensure a comfortable environment for everyone as opposed to a crammed suffocating claustrophobic sweathouse. Never mind if there is a fire, you’ll die in the stampede before the fire itself. My point here is we need to balance our resources with our people to ensure the best quality of life for all. If we are too focused on having more and more babies WHILE disregarding the infrastructure of a city, that city could experience shortages in water, lack of teachers, higher job competition, etc. Of course this doesn’t mean killing off anybody. If anything it is a myth that we are overpopulated, we have the capacity to support many more people on this planet, the problem is how current systems in place (cities, distribution of resources, zoning and planning) are so ridiculously inefficient and abused that we think it’s a idea to get rid of some people). We have the oceans to colonize, we have the moon possibly, we have deserts that can be converted to forests (we have the technology to do that now). The idea is to keep population WITH ABUNDANCE and to do that we have to consider rezoning, re-planning whole cities, creating more spaces, rethinking networks of distribution. I don’t think anybody is a proponent of having children in a deprived environment and that is certainly not agenda of the ZM and VP. If anything that term “population control” is the methodology used right now in America and abroad, human beings are crammed into metropolitan areas or completely isolated by mass produced suburbias, if one wants to move to a rural area for space jobs are scarce. You can’t go to libraries, recreational centers, parks, beaches, schools or any other social environments after 5 PM because it’s all closed. This is control. No wonder there is crime. The current system’s motivation isn’t to ensure a good quality of life for you, but to keep you in line with what economic interests want. Going back to this whole issue with the word control, technology we advocate has absolutely no interest in “controlling human beings”, an elevator ( a machine) doesn’t say to itself “ah this bunch of 26 humans riding me are inefficient so I will ignore their command for the 5th floor and will only take them to the 2nd floor, then I will tell these humans to walk the rest of the way because my calculations have concluded they need to lose weight. It doesn’t work that way. If the elevator has the capacity to take them to the 5th floor then it will do so, no questions asked. But if the elevator’s capacity is only 3000 lbs and the audience inside is 4000 lbs (26 people), I don’t think people inside there are collectively screaming Well we have the freedom to get to the 5th floor at the same time, if anything they don’t want to go in there, its dangerous and claustrophobic, besides the elevator couldn’t handle it and the cables would snap. This is all about management and not control. Therefore a competent manager (global computerized system) would build another elevator with added weight capacity (Of course we would like a system that anticipates these problems in advance, buts it’s an example) which, as a result, manages not controls populations in working elevators to be safe, comfortable, and fast. This is the essence of what is meant by managing the planet’s habitants and resources. Mind you there is nothing against freedom, I want it as bad as you do I hope. We want freedom inherent in the system, and that’s what a cybernated systems aims to do.

    8. The global government run by a global ‘god-on-earth’ AGI computer network to replace all world religions. I think I answered the global government aspect. If you mean god on earth by being an omniscient of the earth’s resources then by all means, this would definitely help us allocate what we need. If you mean god on earth by being omnipotent than it would be of great service to humanity to have a system of unlimited energy (electricity) to power our lives this would free us from unnecessary conflict of scarce resources even though omnipotent energy currently is not a reality. If you mean god by omnipresent, than by all means I would love nothing more than having a global system more advanced than cell phones and highways today that keeps me in full contact with my planet and fellow human beings, whether it is on another continent or planet …..no credit cards or dollar bills needed, just energy and the appropriate technologies. Now if you mean a version of god on earth from some George Orwell novel where some elite technocratic group exclusively uses technology to spy, control and manipulate your everyday affairs, then this is definitely not what we are talking about. That would be an absolute waste of resources. Why spy on someone with thousands of cameras, sensors, secret agents and drone planes, etc. etc. etc. when those resources can be used to make cameras and probes to find out how much titanium is in the earth’s crust, how much iridium or sulfur or coal or diamond resides under the land masses. We can “spy” on the earth to explore deep sea riches that could harness valuable minerals, send “drones” in the Amazon rainforest to find and replicate exotic herbs that improve our lives, or have “automatons” espionage other worlds for signs of life. Mind you these words are arbitrary because the focus of society in the VP and ZM isn’t some neurotic, fear driven thirst for authority. The focus is integration of all the planet’s resources for socially progressive endeavors like exploration, travel, knowledge, health, companionship, etc. I don’t know where you got the idea of the ZM or VP replacing all world religions. It is in our interest to spread awareness as to the current understandings of our world. For example there is no basis for the concept of race, we are all biologically related yet we continue to behave in divisive ways. Certain religions are proponents of race, caste systems, laws, and wars that are irrelevant social concepts that current modern discoveries and technological abilities can solve. But religions are beside the point, it can be a “scientific” ideology, “cultural” ideology, “political”, “economical” ideology etc. Any of these trains of thought that continue to perpetuate the idea that humans are innately evil, or animal/primal in nature, and must be managed by leaders, and that war is human nature, and that human suffering is necessary and that an afterlife of torture is inevitable if you don’t follow certain doctrine is completely out of touch in today’s world. We have the means to progress beyond these limited worldviews into a connected multi-culturally advanced, rich population of diverse individuals that share, grow, and interact with one another on the basis of family, human creativity, and planetary sustainability.

  4. ignoranceisntbliss says:

    JUSTIN KEITH:

    Bad analogy. What Transhumanists are trying to do is use technology meant to help the crippled to enhance themselves to put the non-enhanced into a state of being crippled. And never mind the crippled or even non-crippled who can’t or wont ever be able to afford the enhancements to to get themselves ‘normal’, let alone how it will be unfair to become obsolete as a sort of ‘subhuman’ just because you have ethical concerns that will keep you from upgrading yourself.

    If you have a better example I’d love to hear it…

  5. ignoranceisntbliss says:

    MARC:

    Sorry for neglecting to respond to your lengthy post. I’m a little too spoiled using the ideal debating environment over at ATS, and huge posts like this in these wordpress comments are brutal on me. I’ll be doing a new huge megapost or 2 on this entire issue, rather than just some sloppy otuline as this post is, real soon…

  6. Max H says:

    I 100% agree with the author. Contact me if you need some help.

  7. What is The Venus Project?

    Very Briefly, The Venus Project is an organization that proposes a feasible plan of action for social change; one that works toward a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative to strive toward where human rights are not only paper proclamations but also a way of life.

    The Venus Project presents a vision not of what the future will be, but what it can be if we apply what we already know in order to achieve a sustainable new world civilization. It calls for a straightforward redesign of our culture in which the age-old problems of war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but as totally unacceptable. Anything less will result in a continuation of the same catalog of problems found in today’s world.

    The Venus Project presents an alternative vision for a sustainable world civilization unlike any political, economic or social system that has gone before. It envisions a time in the near future when money, politics, self and national-interest have been phased out. Although this vision may seem idealistic, it is based upon years of study and experimental research. It spans the gambit from education, transportation, clean sources of energy to total city systems.

    Many people believe what is needed is a higher sense of ethical standards and the enactment of international laws and treaties to assure a sustainable global society. Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources we would still have many of the same problems we have today. As long as a few nations control most of the world’s resources and profit is the bottom line, the same cycle of events will prevail.

    As global challenges and scientific information proliferate, nations and people face common threats that transcend national boundaries. Overpopulation, energy shortages, global warming, environmental pollution, water scarcity, economic catastrophe, the spread of uncontrollable disease, and the technological displacement of people by machines threaten each of us. Although many people are dedicated to alleviating those conditions, our social and environmental problems will remain insurmountable as long as a few powerful nations and financial interests maintain control of and consume most of the world’s resources and the monetary system prevails.

    If we really wish to put an end to our ongoing international and social problems, we must declare Earth and all of its resources the common heritage of all of the world’s people.

    Earth is abundant and has plentiful resources. Our practice of rationing resources through monetary control is no longer relevant and is counter-productive to our survival. Today we have highly advanced technologies, but our social and economic system has not kept up with our technological capabilities. We could easily create a world of abundance for all, free of servitude and debt based on the carrying capacity of Earth resources. With the intelligent and humane application of science and technology, the people of the earth can guide and shape the future together while protecting the environment. We don’t have enough money to accomplish these ends but we do have more than enough resources. This is why we advocate a Resource-Based Economy.

  8. Dr. B says:

    People that fall for these cults of irrationality are unknowingly becoming the foot soldiers for the global planners and the one’s that know this but think they will be exempt from the tyranny of the project are even more foolish. Sadly, you cant just tell someone brainwashed to just ‘wake up’ but having them exposed to truth and reason will eventually give them the wisdom to change over time.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s