The Venus Project and Revolution by Bernard Poolman
Zeitgeist Review Part II by Martjin de Graaf
Then we come to Equality, really strange though that what makes us equal in the first place, the physical necessities of life, aren’t mentioned. Only the psychological needs. But these needs can never be met, these can only be solved by the person himself through self-forgiveness.
We cannot built a society to fulfill psychological needs, because these needs are like addictions that can be stopped. If we define ourselves by these needs, we will live a life of absolute limitation and powerlessness.
After this something really important is put: the answer to the question, how come we are who we are? It is said; “it is not a flaw in human nature, … (here follows an extremely long sentence, which ends with) … it’s the socio-economic system itself. This is stupidity of course, because who created the “system itself”? We did! And how come we created a system that doesn’t benefit us all? Exactly, because of our accepted and allowed nature!
Science is placed in the movie as the source that we can trust to base our decisions on. What isn’t taken in consideration is that scientific research is being directed by money. Corporations that fund research and bribe researchers, offering them luxurious conference weeks, to direct the field of research and the outcome of it in a way that they will be able to make money. Therefore we have drugs that don’t really cure people and drinks that don’t stop our thirst, cars that don’t last very long, devices that cannot be fixed etc. etc. So here is missed to that greed as profit determines science, so again it’s human nature that needs to be changed to have science for real.
We see a description of earth as the provider of resources that we need. A extremely self centered outlook on our planet. Earth as a mall. Even the idea presented; Dynamic Equilibrium, is from this starting point, to make sure we don’t consume too fast.
A genius idea is presented: Global Resource Management, Sounds like a practical plan. next I expected to hear how we are going to implement this system, but instead we are directed to Production Management, and Demand and Distribution System. Obviously, the implementation of these global systems demand a global government. So here we have it: Zeitgeist needs the ‘New World Order’ to implement their ideas! I wonder if zeitgeist would have so many followers if this was realized…
Alternative energy sources are being presented, the question isn’t asked: how come that we didn’t create these energy sources already? The answer would lead us to oil and profit and yes, human nature as selfish interest.
In the proposal for the organization of production, a lot of common sense. “Not opinion” it says, which is cool. Just consider the physical reality.
The proposal of a “library” for goods that we don’t need all the time is cool, but it isn’t for the example given: a product that we use for only 45 minutes a day. We don’t go to a ‘library’ for something we use for 45 minutes a day. It’s cool though for things that we have now in rental ‘shops’.
The term is introduced: a True Economy. Again, nothing about the question: how come we don’t have this already?
The young Jacques Fresco does some cool speaking. But he too points to science.
Cool is then that is said, we should plan our society to the laws of nature, not to opinions. But here a really strange term is used: Nature as dictatorship! If we take a look at the way humanity is treating nature, it becomes clear that we behave as the dictator on the planet! So this is clearly projection.
To empower the nature=dictator statement we see a shot of a bear to induce fear on this point.
True is that we cannot bend the laws of nature, but we do use them for our selfish interest, controlling and abusing all other species.
greets! Martijn
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward – Blaz C
I have watched the Zeitgeist: Moving Forward film and I have to say that it is one of the best documentary films I have ever watched because it dares to directly question and expose our current system of abuse that we accept and allow every day, but this is the point where ‘one of the best’ ends. Consider this:
Although there is an ideal solution proposed in a form of how things should be done (from a scientific point of view) in a way that is best for all, so that all would live a dignified life, there are no clear and directive steps being realized and worked on to actually create the change that is required to bring about the goal.
We are living here in physical reality where we have to invent and create practical solutions and consider our current situation to bring about what is best for all. That is only possible if we work together, as one, as equals. It is obvious in the end of the film that the authors have no actual understanding in terms of what is practically required from each individual to bring about what is best for all because of the following: The film ends showing how global protests are taking place where people take all of their physical money and literally throw it at the bank. And that’s it. From there the viewer can only imagine how the society will somehow magically be transformed into a Venus Project kind of city urban environments. That is obviously not the solution. It is just a goal, presented with no understanding of how to make it real.
It is very simple. We have to work with the system, as the system in order to transform it as soon as possible because otherwise we will just be eliminated and seen as a threat. Waiting for enough people to realize that we are eradicating ourselves is not acceptable because in doing this we are actually waiting for ourselves, not taking our self responsibility (not being response-able) and blaming others for not changing and doing what needs to be done to bring about what is best for all. This will only be possible if each one of us self honestly redesigns self to always live by the principle of what is best for all. If that is not done, we will not be able to work and live together, as one, as equals and therefore, no solution for a better life will be possible. One can only do this when one is completely honest about self at all times because only then can one forgive self for what one accepted and allowed and let it go thus giving self the opportunity to redesign self and realign self to live by the principle of what is best for all. When one is not self honest, one accepts and allows thoughts and emotions to possess self which are always self-centered and thus allow and create separation between self and everything else which means that abuse will happen in one form or another.
People gathered together as a Desteni group realize and understand this and thus practically learn how to live in self honesty and in this transform self to always live by the principle of what is best for all. We learn how to always be self-directive, meaning, to never allow self to be influenced by thoughts, feelings and emotions that originate from separation as ego because the consequence of accepting and allowing this in one self will always accumulate into acts that are self-centered and not best for all. For this purpose a life coaching program called Desteni’I'Process has been designed in a form of on-line course in order to effectively support every individual that is serious about self from the point of realizing what needs to be done practically to bring about what is best for all in all ways and take self responsibility to be and live the solution as one and equal withing the group, thus manifesting a system that supports all as one as equal, where all have a dignified life and each one can reach ones highest potential. Realize that this can only be done when all participate equally as one, accumulating what is best for all 1+1+1+1…
Also, while the Zeitgeist people in general realized that there is a big problem in the way money is being used today, they failed at remaining objective in working out a solution because they blamed the money to be bad and so creating a polarity of ‘no money = good’ which is obviously a delusion. Consider this:
Money is a tool that is very effective in dealing with goods and if it is used in the context of a system that is designed from the principle of what is best for all (= Equal Money System) then it is a part of the solution. Realize also that money in itself was never the problem, people are. So it is a mind-fuck if one would want to to eradicate money just because one never considered that it can in fact be used as a solution to the problem we face. That would be an act of complete ignorance. And it is contradictory for a Zeitgeister to make decisions out of a belief while in the same time supporting the scientific method and objectivity. This would be a complete self dishonest act.
And as I realized as one of the founding members of Zeitgeist Slovenija, this is the major problem of Zeitgeisters (like all other people), not wanting to face self and the world in complete self-honesty. Therefore as long as the Zeitgeisters will not realize and do this, they will not be able to contribute to the practical solution that needs to be lived by every individual as self to bring about what is best for all in all ways.
http://blazprocess.blogspot.com/2011/03/zeitgeist-moving-forward.html
Zeitgeist Moving Forward by Martijn deGraaf
At the beginning of the movie Zeitgeist Moving Forward the viewer is shown “rich” people who act out in a decadent manner. What is the implication? That money makes us decadent? Is it that having a lot of money isn’t cool? Again at the end of the movie we see images of people dumping their money; implying that money is the actual problem. But in this world as it is today, it’s obvious that if we want to change anything we need money to get things moving; because money rules us all.
Because of our greed, desires, and fears humanity has proven we cannot be trusted with money. If we want to be effective with money we have to re-create ourselves — not from a starting place of personal interest — but from the starting point of the benefit of all — and that includes ourselves.
“They are rich and spoiled” the film says — “they” — who are “they”?
There is no self-intimacy within this statement; meaning “into-me-I-see.” Those of us who live in wealthy countries, have money and are rich compared to the other half of humanity — do we do whatever we can to change the situation for the other half? Or are we already corrupted, living the ‘good’ life?
Images of war are shown along with an investigation as to how we are capable of committing such atrocities. The film asks: Is it genetics, is it environment? The filmmakers posit that we have a genetic predisposition to genocide but if that if left inactivate by the environment we do not pose a threat.
I found a cool analysis showing that the ones in this world who are addicted to power are the same ones who are well respected.
The film suggests that children growing up in a stressful home are more likely to become harmful themselves. What has been missed here is that most of the stress in our society is caused by the economic system we participate in. If we change the system to take away the “fight for survival” there would be much less stress and children would develop into healthier and less harmful beings. With an equal Money System we will do this. At this point in the movie the solution of self-forgiveness could be well presented, because: what about the grown ups… if they don’t change themselves how are the children supposed to be raised in a different, better way!
Then it’s depicted that in former cultures we were less aggressive. If we check history, we see aggression everywhere. Cultures expanding, conquering other nations, horrible wars, slavery, torture, burning perceived witches, etc. etc. etc.
The film claims that Capitalism and individualism are the source of separation. These are however the direct result of our accepted and allowed nature as how and what we exist as. We can change whatever we like to make a better society, if we don’t change our nature, we will be abusive and harmful in a new situation as well. The point is that we cannot come up with realistic solutions if we don’t change our nature, because we will act upon our fears and desires. First we must re-educate ourselves to be able to live without these motivating impulses; stick to this physical reality and come up with solutions that fit this reality instead of personal interest.
We are told that humanity has a great and unique variety of cultures, etc. What is missed here is that all cultures have one thing in common: being a culture. A culture is like a common opinion on what life entails and how to express life as a member of the culture. Therefor all cultures have missed the obvious: life as oneness and equality. Cultures have reflected our nature, in wanting to dominate and destroy other cultures, “we are right, they are wrong” type of mentality, and with it all variety of social controls that keep us limited in our expression.
Answering Questions and Questioning Answers. Pt 1
I’ve been looking at the Zeitgeist Movement forum page where the subject of the Equal Money monetary system (EMS) came up for discussion. It was no great surprise to read that there was some consideration for the EMS by some of the members there, as there is a growing recognition that there needs to be a transition phase to the Venus Project’s Resource Based Economy. It was also no great surprise to read derisive comments on the quality of the EMS and how it was inferior to the RBE because of the association of the EMS with the Desteni Group. What one gets in this are comments like these:
Marlen is sniping at us, as most EMS’ers do because our ideas make sense and they fear that our group will begin to co-opt their members. Her perceptions are blocked because that is the intentional end result desired by Bernard Poolman, leader of Desteni and EMS.
Our best action is to continue doing as we are doing. They are making these “reviews” because they are threatened.
Marlen Vargas Del Razo is a member of the Desteni Group and had placed several You Tube vlogs about what she saw about the deficits of the RBE in general and the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement in particular. That the poster maintains otherwise, with no evidence presented to back his claim, the Desteni Group is not reacting to the “threat” of the popularity of the Zeitgeist Movement or that Desteni Group members will “defect” to Zeitgeist. That is a fantasy by someone who has an axe to grind and who felt his perspective was given due respect, and it diminishes the weight of seriousness the subject demands. Okay, so while the above post references childlike reactions to the EMS because of its association with the Desteni Group, others are actually more serious. Another poster tried to work out the EMS for himself and concluded that EMS was actually EMS and the RBE combined!
EMS seems good if there is no interest on the principal. But there again – only on paper. To actually transition into this system is to change the human interaction, mindset, indoctrination, education etc. No small feat. If anything, EMS would be just as hard to implement as would the idea to just remove money altogether.
Comment: Yes, it would be difficult to start EMS from scratch under the current economical design. There may well be a transition just to get to the EMS. But where the EMS is most likely to come in is after the inevitable collapse of this current economic system, which will descend on us as sure as rain is wet. Only from out of the aftermath of the worldwide financial cataclysm, a destruction so complete and pervasive that not even the elite shall escape, will the idea of the EMS come as the savior of humanity.
Which would interestingly be very damaging to the whole business market. How would prices be regulated?
Comment: The price would be regulated in a humane way, as the concept of profit will disappear. Since profit would no longer be the driving force to motivate people into purchasing survival from other people, prices would be linked directly to labor, resources, transportation. People would work at professions that inclined to their interests. Most businesses models would cease to exist. Holiday Inn and Starbucks would probably cease to exist because nobody in their right mind would work in a sweatshop or a coffee-house unless they enjoyed it too much. Yeah, unlikely, huh?
McDonalds as well. A lot of what we have accepted and allowed as vital parts of our “civilization” would be rejected and abandoned for something more sensible.
The ‘BIS’ would allow everyone to live in relatively good conditions. ‘LIS’ would allow you to make more money on top of your basic income. And if nobody can earn more than the person next to you, what difference will it have from a RBE?
Comment: Wait a second. It is not that nobody can earn more than another. The Luxury stream is based on one’s self-direction, and so could make extra money to buy luxury items. However, there is an essential difference as no elite will be able to re-emerge from the EMS. Nobody will be able to make money through the exploitations of others. Basically, the real function of money will emerge: used to buy stuff to make life easier to enjoy. How much does one need? That’s up to you.
Think about it: You get a basic income to survive. You then decide a profession and get labor income. Now, I don’t know if you get to keep you basic income after you achieve a labor income, but since nobody can earn more than the person next to you regardless of position, the market would look pretty strange.
Comment: It “looks strange” because you are superimposing your current understanding of market capitalism on top of EMS. There will be no “markets” as they currently exist. Thus, what one makes of their life is clearly up to self.
I’ll brake (sic) it down further: $2000/month basic income. You finish a profession and receive the status of labor income. Now, I don’t know who will set the “equal” number on this, but let us say $5000 is the target income as an example. I get $5K/month for the work I do, so do you and everyone else.
Your work will be based on your labor. I suppose one can work in agreement with another on projects and research, but still, there will be no elites formed by those who make the most of their equal opportunity to do something special with their life.
Now, isn’t there something missing here? I make the same amount of money as you do. I can buy the same things you can. Can you imagine how business would change? If just ONE group of people deviates from this equal system in favor to them, they would have monopoly over the rest hands down.
Comment: There won’t be a way for the system to break down because then you are already living in a condition where elitism is extremely difficult to pull off. You would be asking people to voluntarily become slaves to others. Monopolies are only possible in the anti-democratic system of Capitalism.
If you think about it; this is nothing more than a RBE with money. We can still get the resources we need, but exchange money that everyone gets anyways without doing anything (BIS). And if some decide not to pursue anything larger than their ‘BIS’, those with a ‘LIS’ would have monopoly over them.
Comment: Strictly speaking, that would be extremely difficult to pull off. No monopolies would ever be allowed, and there would be banking regulations to prevent it. Within the EMS, nobody is going to be able to corner the market on chocolate as they are able to do now. The EMS is a completely different version of money relations.
For instance; you want to do more creative things that does not involve work or any specific profession, you just want to try many different things. So when you really look at it, there would still be forced labor to compete and you wouldn’t be able to deviate from the path of a ‘LIS’ if you want access to the same things everyone else have.
I am not sure what the poster meant by this, as he does not provide a specific example. So, all I can say is, I think he’s mistaken.
We will feature more questions from Zeitgeist in future posts. So stay tuned.
Darryl Thomas
