The Zeitgeist Movement.

[Genivar]

Who here on NS has heard of The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project, If you have what do you think of it?
Could it really be the solution to all humanities evils? Or is it just a Utopian pipe-dream?

[Jostedule]

The only thing rational about their ramblings is the one on religion.

[Farnhamia]

The only thing rational about their ramblings is the one on religion.

What, "Jesus is Horus"? Not hardly.

[Glorious Homeland]

Who here on NS has heard of The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project, If you have what do you think of it?
Could it really be the solution to all humanities evils? Or is it just a Utopian pipe-dream?

I was so irritated that one friend liked it so much I managed to write a substantial rebuttal for her.

Here it is: (I got up to analysing 7 minutes through this video, and then gave up because my rebuttal had poked enough large holes in it)
(07:49) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 163636261#

Z claims:

"The Zeitgeist movement is not a political movement; it does not recognise divisionary notions such as nations, governments, races, religions, creeds or class."

It has just stated a political opinion; yes it is a political movement. Everything is politics, as every decision has ramifications and attempts to exert control, regardless of how minimal; over a given situation. The video later attempts to use capitalism as a divisive notion, so it has lied twice within the first sentence.

Z claims:

"Rather, we see the world as one organism, and the human race as a singular family. Simultaneously, we acknowledge that we depend entirely on our environment, not only in regard to the necessities of life, such as food air and water but for influence and guidance in regards to life's processes. We recognise and understand that aligning ourselves with natural processes is the most progressive and productive disposition we can have."

This could mean anything; it's intentionally vague and thus meaningless. Something railed against in "Why I Write" by George Orwell. Vagueness exists because the author wants to hide something from the audience, or to deceive them. What does "our environment", "life's processes", "natural processes", "progressive" and "productive" mean? The listener doesn't know by this point.
For all we know the author could be espousing a change of society like Pol Pot tried to force upon the people of Cambodia with his Khmer Rouge agrigarian communists in the 1970s. A quarter of the population was murdered towards this end; doctors, engineers, scientists, teachers, anyone who wasn't a peasant farmer was considered an enemy of the people and state; in an attempt to reduce Cambodia to a pre-industrial state, on the premise of creating a utopia of equality based in an ideal of absolute self-sufficiency. If an individual wore glasses, it was supposedly a sign they could read, and they were put to death. Is this what the author means? It may as well be, this is how it plays upon my imagination.

Z claims:

"The Zeitgeist movement in fact is the activist arm of the Venus Project."

Activism is political, not only has the author lied to his audience, but he presumes them too stupid to realise what activism means.

Z claims:

"An organisation which constitutes the life-long work of industrial designer and social engineer Jacque Fresco. Simply put, what the Venus Project represents and the Zeitgeist movement condones; is the application of "the scientific method" for social concern."

"Scientific Socialism"? A term first used by Fridrich Engels to describe the political theories espoused by Karl Marx. Dictatorships like Stalinist Russia and Maoist China also used the term "scientific" to describe, and never explain why some of their economic plans were superior.

Z claims:

"One of the greatest discoveries of human kind, which has allowed for tremendous advancement in our abilities on this planet; has been the application and understanding of science. Through the humane application of science and technology to social design and decision making we have the means to transform our environment into something exceeding more balanced, organised, humane, productive, and most importantly, sustainable.
 
As many are aware at this time both with our societal integrity, and ecological integrity are in serious question. The current economic system is falling apart at an accelerating rate with the prospect of world-wide unemployment occuring possibly on the largest scale ever seen."

Sources? There are no figures cited whatsoever to support the bold claims about the impending economic doom. By comparison, here are a list of averages compiled from recorded recessions in the USA.

Recession Periods Av. Duration Av. Time Since Last Av. Business Activity Decline
1837-1859 21 months 27 months -22%
1860-1909 23 months 26 months -23%
1910-1959 16 months 34 months -13%
1960-2010 13 months 65 months -2%

It becomes apparently by these figures that recessions over the past 200 years have got shorter, further apart and with much less of an impact upon business each time on average. The assertion made in Zeitgeist of likely economic doom and gloom is wildly inaccurate to the point of scare mongering.
To compare exact figures; the 1929 Great Depression lasted 3 years, 7 months and declined the US GDP at it's peak by 26.7%. The 2007 Great Recession lasted 2 years, 7 months and declined the US GDP by 3.9%. Unemployment for both periods respectively was 35.5 and 10.2%.

Z claims:

"Simultaneously we are approaching the point of no return in regard to the destruction of the environment. Given the current state of affairs, many of which will be addressed in the first part of this presentation, the viewer should find that we not only need to move in another direction; we have to."

Again, an assertion without factual basis that is definitively vague enough to play on the viewer's imagination rather than logic. Is the destruction of the environment necessarily such a bad thing? Can humanity survive without it? Is it preventable? No mention of these questions.

Z claims:

"In order to understand where we are and how we have gotten to this point in history, we need to address those societal attributes which have greatly affected our social conduct. The most important observation in this regard, is our use of a monetary system. In this section we are going to address the mechanisms of our world monetary system, pointing out the consequences this type of organisational structure has produced. These consequences include:

1) The need for cyclical consumption. Denoting the economic requirement that products and services are perpetually bought and sold regardless of quality and waste.

2) The abundance of scarcity. Denoting how resources goods and services are deliberately made scarce to ensure profitability within the supply and demand equations.

3) The priority of profit. Denoting the vast corruption commonplace in the world due to the need to generate income.

4) Fiscal Manipulation. Denoting how the central banking systems of the world work to benefit of their corporate constituents and establishment power.

1) The need for cyclical consumption. The roles of people in the monetary system are basically broken into three distinctions. The employee, the employer, the consumer.
The employee performs tasks for the employer in exchange for a wage or monetary payment, while the employer sells a good or service to the consumer for a profit, another classification of monetary payment. In turn, both the employer and employee function as consumers, for the monetary payments they obtain are used to purchase goods and services relevant to their survival. This act of purchasing goods and services is what allows the entire system to perpetuate, thus allowing the employer and employee to make money, and thus continue consuming. In other words, it is the requirement of perpetual or cyclical consumption that keeps the entire economy going. If consumption was ever to stop, the whole system would collapse."

It seems that the author presumes, that on top of the fact his viewers are too stupid to know what activism is, they also are beyond comprehending the basics of the capitalist system they live in. I haven't come across such a needlessly long-winded explanation of the above terms before, and hope not to again.

Z claims:

"This produces two severe consequences for society.
1) Nothing physically produced can ever maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to maintain the needed 'cyclical consumption'. In other words, everything must break down in a respective amount of time in order to continue the financial circulation needed to power the economy. This characteristic can be defined as 'planned obsolescence'. Planned obsolescence is essentially the deliberate withholding of efficiency so the product in question breaks down respectively fast. This happens both intentionally, with manufacturers timing their product for breakdown, often as soon as the warranty runs out, and indirectly. Where product based shortcuts taken in production, usually in the form of cheap materials and poor design translates into an inferior product immediately, with the failure of the product simply a matter of time."

Point 1 strikes me in two ways. Firstly, it implies the author has not heard of luxury goods. (A luxury car is not something someone wants to have to replace in its entirety very often!) It also implies that they are unaware that regardless of how well engineered a product is, clothing and parts of transport vehicles or heavy machinery, for example, sustain wear over time; which means they need replaced. Never mind how food is consumed immediately. While it can rightly, in his favour be argued that electronics are increasingly designed to fail outside of their warranty, the process of product evolution brings us back to the benefits of regulated free market competition. If two companies that design a similar products have to compete, they can go one of three ways. Either, they can work to produce a cheaper product, in an effort to out-sell their competitors. Or, they attempt to evolve their product beyond their competitors; so the product is more desirable as it performs better. Or they can attempt to make their product more multi-functional to expand its potential consumer base. In either case, this generally benefits the consumer. It grants either, more availability, increased quality or increased functionality.
The whole thing reminds me of an argument between Nixon [American Vice President] and Khrushchev [Soviet Premier] in 1959, which I shall quote from "Encyclopaedia of the Cold War, Volume 1" by Ruud van Dijk.
"As they strolled through the RCA pavilion, an engineer asked if they would like to be videotaped. With cameras rolling, the vice president eventually guided Khrushchev into a model American kitchen, where the debate began. When Nixon pointed out a panel-controlled dishwashing machine that had made life easier for American women, Khrushchev replied that the Soviet Union did not posses "the capitalist attitude towards women" (CNN transcript). When the vice president claimed that the average U.S. steelworker could afford to buy a house like the one they were touring, Khrushchev retorted that Soviet steel workers and peasants could afford to buy such homes, adding that the American ones were designed to fall apart in twenty years. As Khrushchev grew increasingly frustrated, he asked rhetorically if "you don't have a machine that puts food into the mouths and pushes it down". He added that "many things you have shown us are interesting but they are not needed in life. They are merely gadgets" (CNN Transcript). Nixon countered that he did not wish to "astonish the Russian people" with these amazing conveniences but only to show the diversity of American products that gave Americans the ability to choose. Unlike the Soviet system, which was based on centralized planning and resulted in drab conformity, the vice president argued, capitalism provided diversity."

Z claims:

"The Second consequence is that 2) New products and services must be constantly introduced regardless of functional utility. Generating endless waste. The result of these two issues are nothing but unacceptable. For not only are resources being neglectfully used in products that are designed not to last, wasting human energy and materials; the amount of frivolous waste and pollution that results is staggering. In other words: waste is a deliberate by-products of industry's need to keep 'cyclical consumption' going. The obsolete or expired product is trashed, often to landfills, polluting the environment while the constant multiplicity accelerates this pollution."

The author clearly has not heard of recycling. Furthermore, he is ignorant to the progressive advances in recycling technology, as well as the increasing uptake of recycling usage. Almost all metals, glasses, plastics, paper/cardboard, even batteries can be recycled presently in 2010. In 2008, according to UK government sources; England reached a 34.5% household recycling rate. That rate had been growing, and was expected to keep growing, with some regions in England had recycling rates as high as 57% in Devon. It is a similar picture in most of western Europe, with government targets to raise the amount of waste recycled instead of dumped to landfill.
 
Z claims:

"To express this from a different angle, imagine the economic ramifications of production methods that strategically maximise the efficiency and sustainability of every product. Using the best known materials and techniques available at the time. Imagine products so well designed that they didn't need maintenance for say, a hundred years. Imagine a house that was built from fire proof materials where all appliances, electrical operations, plumbing, and the like, were made from the most impermeable highest integrity resources available on earth. In such a saner world, where we actually created things to last, minimising pollution and waste, a monetary system would be impossible. For cyclical consumption would slow tremendously forever weakening so-called economic growth."

Such a proposal is simply fanciful, as well as blatantly dishonest. It also becomes disturbingly similar to Khrushchev's criticism of American houses being supposedly made to last only 20 years. Most houses will last if they are constructed presently. There is no evidence of all-round structural faults in modern housing, in fact houses these days have more energy saving measures as standard in the UK; like wall and loft insulation and double glazed windows.

The author then goes on to attempt to claim that all products are designed to fail. Many computer components are designed to a very high quality, and so are more expensive; while others are cheaper, and thus more affordable and prone to faults. In either case, it does not mean that they are not recyclable. Mobile phones and computer components are highly valuable for recycling, as they contain many high quality and rare metals. Many expensive products are designed to last, if his assertions that quality is inversely proportionate to economic growth, then why are all products not cheap and nasty? Why do luxury goods exist? Why is there a difference between cheap and expensive grades of goods?
His assertions are also ignorant to high-tech industries, in which consumer demands for advancement mean that high quality products will often outlast the time the time their purchasers use them as primary devices. Why would anyone want a computer designed in 2010 to last 100 years? Ten years would be a good life span, but for professionals or enthusiasts, while the products may end up lasting that long if properly maintained and cared for, they certainly may not want to use them for that long. The consumer, not the company's, desire for product evolution is the point in computer industries. That and the profit in recycling high tech gadget components is apparently something beyond the author's knowledge.

Z claims:

"Mechanism 2, the abundance of scarcity. In monetary economics, supply and demand are partly how goods obtain value. The more there is of something, the less it is worth in respect to itself. If we woke up one day, and for some reason, hypothetically speaking, there were only 100 oranges left in existence, with no possibility to grow more, the value of those oranges would sky-rocket. They are now extremely scarce. In other words, it is profitable for resources to be scarce. If a company can convince the public that their product is rare, the more they can charge for that product. This provides a strong motivation to keep items and resources scarce. The ramifications of this are psychologically profound, for if companies know they can make more money by having their items scarce, the propensity to deliberately limit production or be dishonest about available resources is high. This means that the monetary system rewards mechanisms that inherently discourage abundance and equality."

The example used in this case; oil, is an interesting one to use. Apparently the author was ignorant to the fact that OPEC, the organisation responsible for setting the global price of oil more than any other, counts among most of its members middle eastern Autocracies. These nations keep supply relatively low in an effort to lengthen their oil reserves, but also because the truth of the matter is that their economies, until very recently, and even then, would be almost third-world without petroleum exports.
This produces a positive consequence, as companies for the past 50 years have produced jet engines, automobile engines and the like which are increasingly fuel efficient, quiet and reliable. This is a direct consequence of the scarcity of petroleum, which is environmentally friendly. Vehicles are also being made of more advanced materials which reduce weight and thus fuel consumption, for example; compare the Boeing 767 (1981) to the new (2010) Boeing 787.

Middle Eastern Autocracies cannot compete with the western free markets in terms of either quantity of production; like much of East Asia has become known for, or quality of production, which the western world still champions. The Arabs, Iranians, Venezuelans and others in OPEC hold few cards other than oil exports, and so are forced to use their control of the majority of the world's oil to generate the majority of their revenues. While the likes of the UAE is doing well to invest heavily from oil money to establish Emiri corporations as world-renowned brands, ultimately the control of the vast majority of oil, and it's abundance does not lay with the western world that the author likes to think is to blame.
 
Another major issue with the author's argument, that is perhaps the greatest lie that this political movement wants us to believe... it is such a profound lie that it must be repeated to be fully appreciated.

"This means that the monetary system rewards mechanisms that inherently discourage abundance and equality".

Unlike the author, I do not need to use irrelevant and impossible hypothetical situations to better illustrate my argument. If his claim were true; why does everyone in the west, and many in the developing world, have access to a mobile phone? Why has the computer become a household essential? Why have the refrigerator, washing machine, telephone, television, energy efficiency light bulb... why have all these, initially expensive and luxurious items become house hold standards for most people? Why have they come cheaper than ever before, better than ever before? Why do more people than ever before have access to them? Why does the capitalist system seem to reward mechanisms that encourage abundance and quality?

Z claims:

"Even more offensively, profit can actually be made by a scarcity developed by environmental pollution. Such is now happening with our water supplies. This creates a perverse reinforcement of indifference to environmental concerns by industry, for the more damage there is, the more profit can be obtained by offering solutions, and this leads us to 3) The priority of profit."

While bottled water is a waste, for the most part it's industry is based on the convenience of having fresh water to buy rather than purity. Again, this industry like all others can be broken down into the quality companies, and quantity companies. It is however agreeable that it's a more than not wasteful industry that contributes little to society beyond profits. This said, there is public criticism of the industry in the media, for instance; the BBC in February of 2008 aired "Bottled Water: Who Needs It?", an episode of their principal investigative journalism programme Panorama.

[Unhealthy2]

What, "Jesus is Horus"? Not hardly.

Zeitgeist movement =/= producers of Zeitgeist the film.

[Genivar]

Ok, who here has actually watched Zeitgeist Addendum? If not, heres a link.
Try actually listening to what these people have to say before you attack it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg

[Glorious Homeland]

Ok, who here has actually watched Zeitgeist Addendum? If not, heres a link.
Try actually listening to what these people have to say before you attack it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg

I fucking well have, read my rebuttal!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Who here on NS has heard of The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project, If you have what do you think of it?
Could it really be the solution to all humanities evils? Or is it just a Utopian pipe-dream?

It seems to be an Utopian-pipe dream, imo. Although thinking or advocating that all the World's resources should be the common heritage of all the World's people seems like a decent thing to do, the rest of the group's advocated concepts are... I'm not sure what to think.

[Panzerjaeger]

Isn't it some kind of White Nationalist Fap Fest or some shit? I know it has ties with the National Alliance and other WN groups.

[Coccygia]

Wake me if they ever get to Phase 2.

[Genivar]

Isn't it some kind of White Nationalist Fap Fest or some shit? I know it has ties with the National Alliance and other WN groups.

......I'm just going to assume you haven't heard of it then. Perhaps your thinking of the word Zionist, they are two different things.

[Panzerjaeger]

Isn't it some kind of White Nationalist Fap Fest or some shit? I know it has ties with the National Alliance and other WN groups.

......I'm just going to assume you haven't heard of it then. Perhaps your thinking of the word Zionist, they are two different things.

No I have heard of it but I swear there was WN connections somewhere I remember reading it now I will have to go digging to find it again. No I am not confusing it with Zionist as Zeitgeist is a German Term for basically summed up Spirit of the Times.

[Farnhamia]

......I'm just going to assume you haven't heard of it then. Perhaps your thinking of the word Zionist, they are two different things.

No I have heard of it but I swear there was WN connections somewhere I remember reading it now I will have to go digging to find it again. No I am not confusing it with Zionist as Zeitgeist is a German Term for basically summed up Spirit of the Times.

It's a movement that combines New Age-ish conflation of Jesus with the Egyptian god Horus and a remarkable dislike for the US Federal Reserve system. Very strange, really. Maybe Woodrow Wilson was really Osiris, or Nelson Aldrich was? I dunno.

[Urstania]

I have no problem with the Venus Project, and I wouldnt mind living in a society like the Venus project

[Genivar]

No I have heard of it but I swear there was WN connections somewhere I remember reading it now I will have to go digging to find it again. No I am not confusing it with Zionist as Zeitgeist is a German Term for basically summed up Spirit of the Times.

It's a movement that combines New Age-ish conflation of Jesus with the Egyptian god Horus and a remarkable dislike for the US Federal Reserve system. Very strange, really. Maybe Woodrow Wilson was really Osiris, or Nelson Aldrich was? I dunno.

It goes much further then that my friend. The Zeitgeist Movement wants to abolish the monetary system entirely, they want to do away with all money and currency and adopt what they call a Resource Based Economy.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's a movement that combines New Age-ish conflation of Jesus with the Egyptian god Horus and a remarkable dislike for the US Federal Reserve system. Very strange, really. Maybe Woodrow Wilson was really Osiris, or Nelson Aldrich was? I dunno.

It goes much further then that my friend. The Zeitgeist Movement wants to abolish the monetary system entirely, they want to do away with all money and currency and adopt what they call a Resource Based Economy.

But don't you think that's a tad unfair. Not every country has the same amount of resources. I concede, countries do not have all the same amount of monetary resources either. But you seems to be forgetting human greed. The Zeitgeist Movement is purely utopia.

[Glorious Homeland]

It's a movement that combines New Age-ish conflation of Jesus with the Egyptian god Horus and a remarkable dislike for the US Federal Reserve system. Very strange, really. Maybe Woodrow Wilson was really Osiris, or Nelson Aldrich was? I dunno.

It goes much further then that my friend. The Zeitgeist Movement wants to abolish the monetary system entirely, they want to do away with all money and currency and adopt what they call a Resource Based Economy.

Which is thinly veiled idiocy and pseudo-communism.

[Hydesland]

'Resource based economics' is completely incoherent.

[Caelestius]

Seems to offer vague idealism, abstract "solutions" and close-minded, anti-religious Humanism. While I agree there are detrimental issues our modern society needs to fix (such as perfect recycling processes), there are too many flaws in the movement and really not enough is done about them except holding regional conferences (aka talking). The creators of the movement are attempting to gain power by offering Socialistic, utopian visions to a disillusioned populace. We should work with societies current infrastructure, rather then topple it down and hope we will achieve the Venus projects grand dreams centuries from now.

[Panzerjaeger]

No I have heard of it but I swear there was WN connections somewhere I remember reading it now I will have to go digging to find it again. No I am not confusing it with Zionist as Zeitgeist is a German Term for basically summed up Spirit of the Times.

It's a movement that combines New Age-ish conflation of Jesus with the Egyptian god Horus and a remarkable dislike for the US Federal Reserve system. Very strange, really. Maybe Woodrow Wilson was really Osiris, or Nelson Aldrich was? I dunno.

And I thought I had an identity crisis.

[East Navradia]

Who here on NS has heard of The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project, If you have what do you think of it?
Could it really be the solution to all humanities evils? Or is it just a Utopian pipe-dream?

Nope, it's just Communism in a shiny new wrapper.

[Vonners]

It goes much further then that my friend. The Zeitgeist Movement wants to abolish the monetary system entirely, they want to do away with all money and currency and adopt what they call a Resource Based Economy.

Which is thinly veiled idiocy and pseudo-communism.

much like the OP not engaging with your rebuttal...

[Coccygia]

The Zeitgeist Movement wants to abolish the monetary system entirely, they want to do away with all money and currency and adopt what they call a Resource Based Economy.

Uh...wut? We tried that didn't we? Wasn't that called barter?

[Glorious Homeland]

Which is thinly veiled idiocy and pseudo-communism.

much like the OP not engaging with your rebuttal...

AUGH, I'M INVISIBLE! Except the 6th sensers like you apparently

[Panzerjaeger]

much like the OP not engaging with your rebuttal...

AUGH, I'M INVISIBLE! Except the 6th sensers like you apparently

Did someone hear that? No? Must have been the wind.