No offense, but I disagree.

If we want to, metaphorically saying, yank the tablecloth out from under our society, that is make monetary-ism go away, we shouldn't use or at least totally limit the use of services tied to that system. Frankly, the advertisement and marketing industry is the biggest one of them all.

There is only one way we can really raise awareness: with an honest, free and non-pressuring campaign. But we cannot be seen as honest and free while talking against the monetary system, when we are using the biggest, loudest and most untruthful and unfair form of monetary industry on the planet.

No, we must use free and honest forms of informational channels, like the internet, blogs, forums, chat rooms, and in the real world in the form of free lectures and screenings of the Zeitgeist, Jaque Fresco movies and other documentaries related to our cause, like Home for example. Take a pavilion, or kiosk, put it up on events or on the street and distribute free DVDs and pamphlets, advertise lectures and screening to your friends, family and everyone you come across, use whatever free and hones form of "advertising" you can find. And don't be pushy about it. If someone doesn't want to hear what we have to say, don't chase them down the street, because that'll only lead to aggression towards the movement. We are not here to "sell" this idea, we are here to change the world as we know it, and that can only be done by making an example out of ourselves. Be kind, friendly and tell them as much information as you can, pont them towards more if they are willing to listen, but don't be a traveling salesman.

The best place is where people congregate, I like to take universities for example. If you are on a university, organize screenings and hold lectures. There is a presentation on the zeitgeist website you can use as template, or use these videos. I'm organizing a lecture right now on my university, and I already found some people who are interested in the project.

Just some ideas.

I agree with this. It's as important as it is poetic to show the world the power of volunteerism. We need to lead by example.

Reply to 'Playbahnosh's' Comments above.

I understand the your concerns regarding using the monetary system to adverstise the Movement, and i think it is excellent that you are holding a lecture/screenings at a university and from this have interest. This is ongoing as is blogs, and all the other ways of spreading the word at the moment.

You mention that if someone does not want to hear what we have to say then dont chase them down the street. I fully agree with that, as it is a form of aggrevation, thats why im advocating that we simply put this message across in the most intelligent, streamlined and powerful way possible, without any compromise on honesty. I believe in this movement wholeheartedly as it moves towards a world with no or little human suffering. So if we can get the message out and let the public decide then whats wrong with that!

If you put up a poster, If you post a DVD to someone, If you hold a lecture, all these things need money. Cost of poster and printer, cost of DVD's, cost of getting to lectures. We cannot be niave to the fact that this all costs money, its just that if i sit and watch television at peak time, i can watch an advert about McCain Chips, Banking, Laptops, etc. What not add in there a campain about the movement!

The main objective is getting the message out there and letting the public make an informed decision, so there is no harm in using the worlds recources, i.e television, radio, mainstream communications if we can.

And we Can!!!

I understand your concerns perfectly (having had them myself, or at least, concerns of a similar nature). The distortion of fine ideas such as those of the Movement had the following effect on previous ideologies in the past: 1º the core principles were progressively mixed with rhetoric and literary "appealling" versions...
2º people liked them more and more and this led to violent overthrows time and time again (French Revolution, Bolshevik revolution etc. etc. etc. No revolution of this nature was really sucessful in my opinion, but this is another discussion altogether...).
I am deeply concerned that the more we spread this message the more endangered the root facts shall become, and that as this message is communicated to (pardon the expression) "the masses", the information flow will become more and more simplisttic. Example:
If one of us tells ten others about zeitgeist, the others will require to find the information themselves (by watching the movies and going to the website). Paradoxically, if ten already know and one does not, he shall be more inclined to believe it quickly (hence skipping some of the education required). But perhaps i am being paranoid...

However, I do see Scott B's point of view. My parents are advertisers, and as much as I agree that it's the epitome of the capitalist corrupting machine(they jokingly call their practice "the fine art of separating people from their money"), It IS a medium of communication we should not shun altogether. If we were to raise money (this is necessary anyway...until we actually live in a resource based economy, we will need money to get the message across. It's sad but true) and spend it on "advertising", we (the client) would have FULL POWER over what the message is and how it shall be relayed. It ultimately does not matter that the company makes a campaign strictly for "selling" purposes, because we (the client) will have a chance to look at it and trash whatever is not to our taste before it goes on the air.
I also agree that agravating conducts are not the answer, but I believe that if we separate ouselves from the monetary economy, NOT PLAYING BY THEIR RULES and rebuking their methods of communication this blatantly, Big Business, in it's paranoya, will label the movement as a threat to "the free world". I think we must show "CEO's" that we mean them (or their wealth) no harm... they are "symptoms" in the words of Peter Joseph, and an open rift in society (an "Us and Them" mentality) is not desireable. We must not reject advertising completely just because it is USUALLY used by profit-seekers. My parents have watched and are members of the movement, despite their profession (we are not bolshevists... we are not going to kill the powerful just because they "made it" in a sick society. That is unfair and inhumane.)

In short, I believe advertising is not a priority (the movement is still small in global terms and ideas should be transmited only to those who would listen), but as the movement grows we should consider all alternatives to increasing global awareness. Why shouldn't we fight Fire with Fire, if it's effective?
I remember this one time a couple of years ago: I was on a train into town (Lisbon), and as I watched, aloof, the buildings speeding by, and I noticed it... thezeitgeistmovement.com, in big cristal-clear letters, high atop a buildings wall. I was awestruck! It made me reconsider the power of change (or the power of demanding for it). Is a big billboard with the logo and a catchy slogan (that makes people curious about the meaning of the message) not a natural progression to this?

Scott,

Playbohnosh hit it right on the head in a response to you about donations, advertising, etc. Here is how you manage to keep an institution from forming and still use money to help spread awareness.

The group (the zeitgeist movement) does not require money and they do not accept donations, however you as an individual can spend your own money on your own materials and promote the idea and movement, but only if it aligns with what the movement direction and materials. If everyone did this, it would accelerate the movement, but it's not required. By doing so, you allow yourself to contribute with "fire with fire" as Luis puts it, but you can't claim that the organization accepted the money, nor can you charge money for the free material that is shared with others from the movement. Some people have tried to sell the material, which resulted in the zeitgeist movement pushing or shying away from such behavior.

The main reason for using your own resources and not centralizing them into one group or institution is to prevent corruption, positions, dictatorship, leadership, etc. No one person leads this movement, even Peter himself tells you that he is not a leader, but a communicator (with excellent videos, material, and research to go along with it). If I wanted too, I could start my own zeitgeist movement #2 and promote the same type of material, with the same common goal to help spread awareness. The same affect would be positive and would help eliminate the overall corrupt system we live in today, which I think most of us want.

I'm fully heartedly for the movement's direction, but I don't blindly accept ideas, change, etc. The zeitgeist movement is an accumulation of knowledge I've found myself gravitating towards for some time from other information I've absorbed in my environment over time. It only felt right that I got on board to support the broadness of the idea behind it. I might not agree 100% with everything Peter says, and I even have concerns in some aspects, but it's better for humanity and earth as a whole to collaborate rather than compete. Competing is aggressive, collaboration is compassion and compromise for the better good. Advertising is a form of competing over market share and eye balls. You have to be careful at what you portray a free movement as in your own image.

If we are all brothers and sisters, then we all families and are connected in some way. This would apply whether you believe in god, the gospel, etc or if you believe in evolving from start dust, to organisms, to mammals, and finally to humans. So I hope you take my comments constructively and don't feel as if I've tried to conquer your views or impede your knowledge or growth. I'm simply learning as I go throughout life too.

Guys, Thank you for your comments regarding the topic. This is a healthy debate with lots of different views and opinions.
I knew that my remarks would be some what 'controvertial' and i welcome the comments. It's good to share these opinions.
I know that listening to Peter's Radio Address he has touched on the subject, I would however love to hear Peter and Jacques comments on this topic as i feel its important for them to do so.
Yes Luis! Your Right regarding the Movement perhaps being in the early stages not ready for advertising and could be considered later down the line.

My concern at the moment though is Branden, (Whose comments i respect) saying that for example i can spend money advertising Zeitgeist as an individual, or even start up another similar movement. But i may not support the core values of the movemant and therfore my message is distorted. My message might be similar but more aggresive in it's approach. (Not something we would advocate). The movement has been founded on the ideas of Peter and Jacque and i would like to think those ideas are somewhat protected and projected as we move forward, amended yes, but not distorted.


Ask yourself what made you 'Join' the movement'!

Did you watch Zeitgeist or Addendum, Did a friend explain it to you, or did you simply hear about it.
What ever it was, something was triggered in your mind to explore it further. It is the skill set of Advertising that through research can find the trigger points that capture peoples attention. I do not see this as manipulation.
I know that McDonald's through advertising can make an unhealthy burger seem irresitable and yes! that is a distortion of what the burger really is, but remember a Zeitgeist advertising campaign does not have an agenda of Profit, it's agenda is to educate people on the truth of the corrupt world we live in. Not to do this would be an injustice to our society.

But all in all i agree with the points you've made and thankyou for your kind and well worded comments at the end.
I certainly do take your comments constructively, and as you rightly said, 'were all learning as we go though life'.

I cannot even begin to express how disappointed I would be if The Movement took the direction of advertising. Although Scott B makes good points about the hypothetically honest intentions of Zeitgeist commercials versus the more common dishonest and profitable intentions, I completely agree with ‘Playbanosh’ on several points. In addition, there are multiple reasons why I believe advertising would not only fail to benefit the overall cause, but possibly hinder the Movement in the long run:

1) Compromising the Integrity of The Movement
We don’t need anyone, such as a company, “supporting The Zeitgeist Movement” that doesn’t really support The Zeitgeist Movement. This could be very harmful to our cause. We are currently spreading the idea through word-of-mouth and the freedom of the internet, and this means we believe in the idea whole heartedly and so we’re willing to share it. (There are seminars, etc, but most of us wouldn’t know about them in the first place without first w-o-m and the internet.) This kind of passion represents what we stand for in the first place – incentive & drive for the benefit of mankind without monetary gain – and is one of the most appealing aspects the Movement. In order to advertise, however, we’d have to get into hiring ad executives, a marketing team, paying a certain network, etc – however you want to go about it. Sure we’d approve the commercials and make sure they’re tasteful & truthful, and they may even do a great job of relaying the message at first, but an ad exec who doesn’t give a hoot about the environment, or our cause, would love to take on TZM account and get a piece of the aforementioned “$3.6 million” advertising budget. As soon as there is major money to be made, this compromises the purity of the Movement and questions the motives of those who suddenly want to become involved with it. Introducing the acquisition of funds ruins everything. In addition, we risk irrelevant accusational questions about which demographic the commercials are supposedly targeting, or why we chose a particular channel or network, etc.

I do understand the comparison that advertising is quite innocently just another business tool or expense much like “DVD’s, posters, printers, and getting to lectures”, which we’re already spending money on. The difference is, when we purchase such means of travel or relatively minor supplies to support the Movement, our purchases are independent, and “spread out too thin” for any particular company to be affected on a large scale. In other words, the airlines and the office supply stores aren’t “lobbying” for TVP just because we buy plane tickets to seminars, and use a lot of poster-board. These are necessary, but consequentially irrelevant, purchases that have no significant impact on their business(es). Alternatively in the case of advertising, we’d be shelling out one huge wad of dough, and the last thing we need is a major partnership, contract, deal, or account with any kind of “corporation” that could externally benefit from our cause. I agree with Luis in that we should avoid an “us vs. them” attitude, and that we’re not attacking the “CEO’s,” but we don’t need to lie in bed with them either. Lets face it, Luis, TZM doesn’t aim to hurt anyone, but it certainly threatens the status-quo of the elite, and if that’s intimidating because we shy away from advertising, then so be it.

2) The Possible Accusation of Hypocrisy
I know that we still live in a monetary system and in order to make the The Venus Project possible for tomorrow, we have to abide by some of the existing rules of today. (Pay for supplies, travel, communication, etc.) However, I think its important to do so only when absolutely necessary. It is not necessary to spend money on advertising, and we would not only be supporting, but worse, appearing to *rely* on, one of the industries that the Project plans to do away with! Those opposing the Movement could argue that we aim to create a society where competition & advertising serves no purpose, but yet we utilize advertising in our campaign. Yes, we who fully understand the Project know better -- that advertising might be useful for spreading the word today, but wouldn’t be necessary in a resource-based economy tomorrow -- but they won’t give us that benefit of the doubt when convincing the ignorant masses that we’re hypocrites, and that advertising is “obviously a completely innocent, useful, and necessary tool, just like money!” It’s not worth the risk. Convenient perhaps, but we don’t need it.

3) Negative Association
“If we can get the message out and let the public decide then what’s wrong with that?” During peak television times, along with “Chips, Banking, Laptops, etc… Why not add in there a campaign about the movement?” Because we don’t want to be associated with those! Yes, I understand that if the Zeitgeist commercials were completely non-profitable, with totally honest intentions, then “advertising” alone would not make us hypocrites. Using technology itself (television, radio, podcasts, etc.), which we so strongly advocate, to share our message is not “wrong,” however we have to be smart about the methods we use to relay our message, and with whom we are associated as a result. For example, even if my only goal is to increase health awareness and promote Vitamin C, it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to hand out vitamins on the same corner as the most popular drug dealers, just because they get the most traffic. Maybe this is a silly analogy since commercials aren’t harmful illegal drugs (supposedly ;) but they do annoy the crap out of me, and we don’t want TZM annoying anyone, or being lumped in with other useless crap that we seek to get rid of.

4) Quality vs. Quantity in Education & Awareness
TZM applies to everyone, but it speaks most clearly and effectively to those who are ready to listen. To anyone else it’s just noise, just like loud commercials that interrupt your program. This goes hand in hand with what Luis said about the message becoming too “simplistic.” I agree. It’s important in preserving the ideas behind the Movement that people get all the facts, and view it from all aspects. Sure, the role of the commercials could be to politely spell out the websites(s), and leave the rest up to the viewer, but people are less likely to look further into it and educate themselves when they’re just waiting impatiently to get back to their show. I fear the imperative educational process behind The Movement would get lost if we were to shout it out to the masses on the tube in between IMB and Toyota. Personally, I heard about Zeitgeist from a friend through our conversation about living in LA and surviving what’s known as the Hollywood Hustle, and upon viewing the film, it spoke to a part of me that had been questioning these issues since I was a young teenager. TVP struck a chord in me that was missing something all along, and since then I have been becoming more and more educated. If there are sheep out there that must be forced to hear about TZM during peak television, and probably validate it through such pop culture, then I could be wrong, but we don’t need that audience just ignorantly “jumping on the bandwagon.” I don’t mean this with a “holier than thou” attitude, but quality takes time and effort. I feel The Zeitgeist Movement will find its way into the lasting hearts & minds of everyone through the current methods, and for the right reasons. Obviously we welcome any and all support, but if we’re to continue to build a solid foundation that is sure to stand strong through a very difficult transition, our success requires that it comes from an informed and genuinely interested standpoint, and not a “tuck tail & run” because things got rough. The upside? Granted, after seeing a Zeitgeist commercial, millions of people could go online, get (fully) educated, and join the Movement. The more likely downside? All of the above.

It’s ironic – the one major thing we need to really get underway is mass awareness, and technically speaking, advertising could definitely accomplish that. Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant people out there, easily influenced by anyone dying to squash this, and I just think associating the Movement with advertising is walking on very thin ice. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, and if we maintain our qualities we will eventually achieve quantities by spreading the word!

Yeah it's such a hard topic to argue about because you want this to be heard . . . but you can't be hypocritical at the same time.

I feel people would understand if money were used for advertising, because it is now the society we live in. Most of the public is too dumb to notice advertisements and their effects anyways :), but it would also be way more powerful if this movement went forward with very minimal use of the monetary system at all.

Its ironic really.....Most Charities do a fantastic job, and the public praise them for their efforts, yet some charity directors live lavish lifestyles from the donations they recieve!!

While it is ethical not to advertise, let me put it to you guys another way!!!....I want people to know about this movement, and to educate them! I know peter talks of this being a grass roots movement and i entirely agree with that, but there is a drought over these roots and there is no harm is watering them!!
For you guys who say this would tarnish the reputation of the movement i say this.... THE MORE PEOPLE WHO JOIN THE MOVEMENT THE MORE IT WILL SPREAD! Here is an example of how to do so!!
TARGET: To mail every house/Home in your country!
HOW: Donate $** and pick what streets in your local area are leafleted..(Leaflets distributed by National Mail Company) i.e UK Royal Mail!!
The website would then show what streets have been done and what are still to be done!!

WATCH: as the streets fill, and as they fill, more

The bank acoount can only be used for the purposes of the donation and its accounts are transparent!!

Come on, who can tell me thats a bad idea!!!

NO WAY DUDE! forget about the money, just take the learnings and be at peace! if you`ve understood the message; a great deal has been achieved... Wanna influence others? let them come. they will come as indoctrinated as everyone in this world is, but since you`ve understood, you will make them understand as patiently as you can... Just a thought, anyway revolution can begin anyway (the sooner, the better) just not through money, PLEASE! we humans are better than that, and we need to prove it!

hmm...i never made a film about eugenics.... but thanks anyway!

I wonder which eugenics film you are talking about Christian. ¿Could you name it?
Maybe you are confussed about the word you wanted to use.

Yeah, that'll be great! You know, that'll be great. You can watch it by searching google videos; its title is called "population Control-the eugenics connection. Peter says he did not make such film, and I beleive him. But can you agree it totally sounds like him? How bizarre. Joseph, maybe you can check it out. You have a very distinct voice...Thanks for considering to correct me Barrera, tell me what you think! Hiy me back.

Hi, I have listened to the google video you refer to, NO Offence but that voice sounds Nothing like Peter Joseph, does sound a bit like Jay Leno though lol

First off, I absolutely agree with everything you said, I very much enjoyed reading your comment. I might personally add something to the discussion though: A society free of the obvious value distortions we currently possess, replaced with honest legitimate value identifications as presented here, would naturally migrate away from propensities to distort the truth. Human behavior will be less bound by our subjective perceptions and thus be more accepting of the truth. As I've said many times before, regardless of what world view we might individually possess, the scientific method will inevitably lead us to answer the great question. No philosophical "wars" need be waged, it's in the scientific method we trust.

In summery :) If you personally want to see more open discussion regarding our early history, evolution, and origins within the scientific community, the movement itself is still the best step we could take in that direction; even if it seems the movement is discouraging ideas such as divine creation, or non-terrestrial manipulation.

Absolutely. The scientific method is really the only mechanism we possess that is able to bring us towards even a brief flirtation with a tiny portion of truth- however tis better than blissful ignorance. The zeitgeist movement IS the best direction, however some aspects of human capability, major historical literature and archeological evidence are not taken into consideration which is a shame (in academic terms). This does not encumber the holistic goals of the movement itself by any means, perhaps such areas were left out purposely to bring as many 'far-gone' individuals on-board as possible as such subjects may have triggered too severe a paradigm shift for some. Perhaps once more people are privy to the ideas of absolute oneness, shared consciousness and the necessary abolition of all that is distorted and rotting within our 'society', we can then tackle that which is more trivial when we, as a collective, are ready to do so.

Well said:) It's unfortunate Peter's earlier film about organized religious origin was taken so far out of context, which is not surprising to say the least. It has unfortunately alienated many potential supporters, who can now only see the movement as being hostile to their particular world view. Peter has only advocated pursuing what is scientifically provable, while "accurately" defining everything else as being superstitious in nature - and this is coming from someone who is open to the idea of non-terrestrial creation or manipulation. All one has to do is to look at the coming revolution in computational power coinciding with our continuing understanding and implementation of "virtual reality" or simply "reality," as I believe is more accurate, to realize the "potential" scientific likelihood of divine creation. It's easy to see the tools of creation are very much a reality and at the very least, discussion regarding this should not be considered blasphemy in the scientific community. But as I've said earlier, the scientific method will lead us to better understand our existence regardless of our subjective predictions, and make no mistake, they are predictions. We currently do not possess all the answers in the universe, and to try and assert definitive answers without any irrefutable methodology is best reserved for irrational fools.

Sure, what I am talking about however is a little more dubious perhaps as it is not divine (in the traditional sense of the word) creation per se. I am quite privy to 'alien intervention theory', as when one applies the process of elimination, it is far more 'likely' that most references to 'divine beings' coming down from the 'heavens' in their 'chariots of fire', in todays frames of reference, would point in the direction of extraterrestrial visitors or 'ancient astronauts' rather than angels or gods. Ancient Sumerian cylinder scrolls for example talk of the 'Annunaki' which translates as 'those who from heaven to earth came' who taught the primitive Sumerians agriculture, trigonometry, astronomy etc... (the Sumerians were well aware of the layout of our solar system well before Copernicus and were even aware of the relative distance of Pluto from Earth, according to what the Annunaki taught them - their 'creation story',even when analyzed with severe scientific scrutiny, sounds suspiciously like a relatively primitive society trying to put into words what we today would call genetic manipulation... that we are alien hybrids...missing link?)
Of course here lies the crux of the problem with the scientific method which i initially tried to point out - that which is (or has the propensity to be) extraterrestrial in nature, holds no footing within terrestrial means of evaluation.

Just for clarification, when I speak of 'divine creation' I'm not specifically referring to 'our' creation, but that of the universe as a whole, which is a topic for another day:P But yes, I think you make an excellent point and I absolutely agree with you regarding our early history in terms of what was described to be gods and angels, or "the men of wisdom," as described by Mayan priests. Life is abundant in the universe, and it seems scientifically self defeating to not pursue the possibility that manipulation has occurred on one level or another throughout the millions of years of our evolution, especially when there seems to be actual evidence pointing to this exact notion.

Great conversations from you two. I highly enjoyed both points. I'm not really going to jump in and take sides or anything. I just wanted to say that I've really come to enjoy the Mayans and their abilities to track time from the galaxy or universe. The very notion of them talking about 'life' from outside of earth does open some minds. I do wonder what kind of information is lost by disregarding the cultures that these ancient civilizations had. But even these cultures weren't perfect, and Mayans waged war against other Mayans. If they had some divine plan from 'aliens or extraterrestrial life', then how come that plan didn't involve peace and collaboration rather than competition and destruction of one another? I do enjoy the Mayans idea of conscious evolution, but perhaps that is what they wanted, but they were to early in time to achieve it. They obviously had a better head start and understanding of time then we did. I find it interesting to ponder their different calendars and what they entailed. I've even gone as far as looking up my intention on their personal calendar and it seems deadly accurate. The movement has described spirituality in some sense and coming together as one. Maybe with time, this will manifest into what some of the ancients saw coming, with such things as 'telepathy' and conscious co-creation.

I do sometimes wonder if our diverse behaviors come from simply the universe in general. The universe is both systematic and chaotic at the same time. I'm not saying human behaviors mimic this exactly, but it's interesting to wonder just how much we are affected by the universal constructs and affects of other neighboring galaxies. I like to listen to Alan Watts talk about how we are vibrations and his perceptions of it all, which coincides with what I'm talking about in this paragraph.

Anyways, great comments. You are both much more inquisitive and informative than those youtube flamers.

exactly, people have to stop being materialistic.
they see happiness in buying and owning "stuff" instead of living peacefuly with fellow human beings, where no one is starving, no one is killing, no one is stealing. THAT would be a major step towards a better future

Armin, the solution never lies in "People have to stop doing this and people have to start doing that." It's impractical. Not everyone will share your ideologies nor will they bend over backwards for them.

There is a reason why socialism is near perfect in theory and sub par in implementation. The natural urge for competition runs through our veins and must be accounted for.

Total equality will only become possible when we all turn into vegetables.

Interesting comment Bill. I too have read the "last hours of ancient sunlight". Great read. I enjoyed learning about the fall of Ancient Greece and why only olive trees can grow now. (the natural resources/their current tech) could not support the war any longer.

But I dont recall very much technological application to their solutions provided although the idea of smaller communities is very usefull.

About your comment of pop. rising as food supplies rise. I cant imagine that being a problem during a time where people are totally aware of the carrying capacity of the earth. It would be common knowledge to know how many people each community can handle. It would be an embarrassment for people to be openly overpopulating their own communities.

We have to take into consideration the full implications on a venus cultures perspective towards the world around them. Just as we wouldnt consciously have 10 children when we could only financially afford 2. We would consider the earth and our community in the same way as we do now our finances.

I also feel a great vision is required to fully understand the implications of the venus culture. The way we would think and percieve eachother. The universe.

I imagine "contact" would be made soon after if not during the transition.

I would totally recommend the Book (Trilogy)
K-PAX.

Also made into an amazing film starring Kevin Spacey.

I RECOMMEND TO EVERYONE TO READ JACQUE FRESCO'S BOOK " THE BEST THAT MONEY CANT BUY"

PURE BRILLIANCE!!! My whole copy is covered in Highlights! haha

~ Love and Passion ~

Very Good Point! It would be great to have prepared material for Mass Forwards.

A way to spark the attention of a listener in afew words or a short paragraph.

I would also recommend finding the fax numbers/email address to many different papers/websites influencial people. Making an organized list and suppling it ready made available to All.

the more people are pushing for discussion on the subject to all media sources the more success we will obviously have. TZM should definitely have a database of emails/names and fax numbers to send TZM info to.

The media needs to not only hear from us but the message needs to persist in their direction that this IS a worth while story. Its not a Fad. Its not Idealism!

Its Practical! Scientific! Logical!

Much Love and Passion to you All!

Peter, Jacque and Roxanne; you 3 are absolutely amazing! True Inspirations!

Gracias por los subtítulos al Castellano ;)

When you ask a question like “how do you plan to fight against human nature?” you have to be more specific. In the Venus Project, emotional education will taught in schools to help people control there aggression, greed and competition etc. For more information look in the Zeitgeist Movement Activist Orientation Guide PDF, Chapter 7 (Nature vs. Nurture).

There is no such thing as human nature, there is only human behavior.

Dave: control aggression - I dont talk about public aggressions like shooting at schools, let's take everyday aggression, from people that are not so educated and have different opinion about life than you.

Kalen Derek: Maybe you can find it surprising, but there exists people that would kill without any reason. The reasons that you cant explain. Maybe if you will create new computers that will track any possible behavior. Anyway, I think human nature is more complex and important task to resolve.
Maybe that's why we need religions.

So why do you think it is so easy yo resolve ?

Yes Vasek, there will always be people that murder, rape, or steal. The question doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we can "completely" eliminate this behavior. It has everything to do with which system, on balance, better *prevents* this behavior to begin with - and if you look at the current prison statistics in the United States, which has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world, it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over mud that our current system is unacceptable.

I completely disagree with you. I don't know why you specifically mention communism as well. Almost every great step forward in social rights has come from one form of revolution, or war. This movement is doing everything in it's power to create change through education to specifically avoid anything remotely violent. Nothing about this movement is militant, and to force these ideas on anyone would be a complete contradiction of what the movement stands for.

(back to Windows) - it is not so bad as you described, I think the main reason is that windows the most used OS.
Second - widows maybe fill and saturated only by user.

Now about communism - I now it very well, I was pioneer before the USSR corrupted. The social model was good, at 1970-s it is become society where you don't need to think about tomorrow, you had many choice who become. Yes, It has lack of responsibility, there was thief's at the government level, but it is more better than capitalism. The main reason was - lack of freedom and broken relations with west.

I have similar background as vasek, and I saw how "creating mass awareness" works.
As long as sufficiently high percentage of people have to make sacrifices in order to reach "higher goal" there will only be failed attempts.
So, in order for this new Order to work, mass emancipation MUST be strictly followed by successful reduction of scarcity. There is no other way. Its not my opinion but a proven fact in many different variants of communist/idealist states.
As long as most people have to do boring, empty and humiliating jobs (or sustain economic pressures) there wont be any progress no meter how hard we want things to be better. Social fact is that 70% of people don't really care sincerely about ideals but about anyone/anything that gives them bread.

Perfect thought quoted from teaminfinity.com:

"ROBOTISM© Will Succeed for PRECISELY the Reasons Communism Failed...
...People Intelligently CHOSE to NOT Work as Human-Robots under Communism,
real ROBOTS will have no such choice under ROBOTISM"

And thats in my opinion complete and final truth concerning this meter. If you lived under communism you would much better see how it is truth.

But now we get to the final paradox. How to implement such a positive and humanistic idea without system's consent? We have means today to do that, but by WE I mean people AND system.

Peter has still not answered my question concerning system's place in all of this.

PS Noun "robot" comes from Slavic word "rabota" meaning work, activity.. in same languages word "rab" means servant/worker/slave..

Mark,

I usually refrain from using the words "new order" simply because that would imply that someone or something is doing the ordering. No one orders you around in this future society besides nature.

You also seem to indicate this movement as communism, and although I see the similarities, I find it extremely different because it proposes eliminating government, money, and work by using robotics to do the work. This is drastically different than anything ever proposed and shifts beyond any kind of ism that people throw out there.

When exactly do you mean when you say without the systems consent? The system isn't emotionally attached to working. Although I believe everything on earth is technically alive in one way or another depending on how far down you get in the structure, most things work in harmony with one another when not interrupted by a more advanced species like humans. You give, you take, your born, you die. We all live within the confines of nature and it's cycles. If such a cybernetic system were to become alive like I think you are explaining, it would probably come to the realization that it wouldn't exist without it's human creators.

Either way, at this point in time I find it's far fetched to think that machines will evolve and somehow no longer consent to do what they have been programmed to do by human ingenuity. Mostly what we are talking about at the current time, is a distribution system of resource goods to eliminate scarcity. It's hard to imagine what future machines look beyond that point because we can't even think past our ego and self-interests now, yet alone constructing self-sustaining machines that eliminate poverty, scarcity, etc.

I think it's important to note the distinction between what is traditionally understood to be a slave, and what this system proposes. The machines created to handle the majority of the workload will be no more a slave than your toaster. They are what we program them to be and to think we would program an automated cyber-janitor with emotional intelligence is... not likely.

I think it's only inevitable that there will be conscious machines with emotional intelligence, and if you support Kurzweil's predictions, this will happen sooner than people think. The main point here is that they won't have anything to do with the machines handling the labor and most likely will identify themselves as being more like us than their can opener. They most likely will recognize the merit of the system and I would also say that anyone fearing the rise of artificial intelligence is just projecting what they've picked up along the way from Hollywood sensationalism - although I will admit that nobody really knows what will happen beyond the singularity.

In the end if you look at human biology you realize that any difference between us and them is entirely cosmetic. Our DNA is no different than a digital bar-code, and our intelligence is based on a complex neural network that communicates using electrical signals - no different than binary code.

I noticed the Q&A was left out too, will it be uploaded?

tx:)

if you're from the balkan peninsula, you are screwed.

nothing can be done here, the people won't listen...

Something can ALWAYS be done!

You know the systems Strategy. DIVIDE AND CONQUER

So.. Take a wild guess what you have to do. Start uniting your communities. And arming them with Knowledge.

Bring up Real Questions. Talk about Root Problems.

And introduce them to the Zeitgeist.

They are looking for more designers, programmers and all who can help in any way they can... new city is in progress, you can be part of it too : thenzp.com/

Complete freedom is utopia. Democracy demands commitment and... your body will to some degree keep you embraced.

I think:
1.There will be non-commercial organization controlled by resource-planned by supercomputer global software.
3.Incentive to work will be - discover you talents and find occupation of you life, work that you will really love.

to aminhilal,

All your answers are in the "orientation video"

I agree! this Lecture by far struck a cord (so to speak).

answered all the questions and left me feeling totally confident that everything is going to work out! It has to.

P.S. Peter, did you have a button on your laptop programmed to bring up the "communism responce page" for when you heard the inevitable communist comment. hahahaha.. that was hilarious!

I agree and hope everyone reads these comments!
A resource-based economy would be very hard to implement without our current state of technology, and to get to this stage, the current system hasn't been all that bad. But it is time to evolve.

Just one quick clarification on your comments. The central computer isn't a "decision making computer." Computer's still have yet to overcome the human mind in one aspect, and that is creation. We in a sense make a 'decision' by offering a better bridge, phone, car, train, etc. The computer is only a technical instrument, which analyzes only elements technical in nature. Everything speculative is still in our control. You can say that it 'makes decisions,' but I personally think that is inaccurate. Decisions are 'arrived at' as Peter likes to say by the technical evaluation of the proposed design. Almost everything residing in our current level of scientific understanding is technical in nature, it makes perfect sense to delegate this responsibility to computers.

I also don't see this as being monopolistic as well. This system has great potential to empower the individual. Each person will have equal access to the tools and potential implementation required to push their product forward. I think it's a form of unprecedented access and competition which no longer depends on the requirement to survive, but is universally encouraged and rewarded in a way that not only benefits you, but the collective human race. It ideally makes self interest and altruism indistinguishable. Which I might personally add, is more than enough motivation to keep me hitting the books.

Quasi competition is also most obvious in today's computer (technical) industry. Like: AMD/Intel, Ati/NVidia to name just a few..
Some are open monopolies like: Microsoft, Google, Cisco..

I am not saying they are bad, just that competition is not the essence of our world deep inside anymore.

I really appreciate this comment posted by Sean Schexnayder

I'm with Kalen, but you make great points Sean. I personally love learning and wouldn't mind contributing my time and effort to collaborate with other brilliant minds in creating things that improve all life. The stress levels would drop to 0 knowing I don't have to survive in this modern animal kingdom and instead could focus on my studies and building a better future for everyone. Not everyone will agree on everything in such a society. I mean you might spend your entire life researching airplane technology thinking it can surpass maglev trains, but your work will still do good for society and be archived into the system, even if it's not deemed as efficient, useful for continental travel, or environmentally sound. Of course someone else could continue your work at that point if they wish, and maybe, it could be modified to make something better that was never though of before.

In the mean time, you can enjoy your freedom to spend time as you please and doing something you love to do, with no one firing you because you ain't pulling your own weight. I think most people will come to find that collaboration will be exciting and fun in a modern world. Knowing you are working with a team of like minded individuals who share a common goal just makes me giddity thinking about it. One person can only achieve so much, but when you start combining the power of our future technology and lifelong scholars all over the world, you'll see a change that's so unimaginable that one cannot even fathom it today.

I recently came across this report from the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies regarding the rise of open-source economy/anarconomy via the web. cifs.dk/doc/medlemsrapporter/MR0309UK.pdf The whole report is incredibly pertinent, but this particular quote is very relevant to the discussion.

"Imagine a lottery with a hundred thousand lottery tickets costing ten euros apiece, where all contestants win a grand prize of one million euros. It wouldn’t be hard to sell those lottery tickets, would it? In fact, that’s how Wikipedia and open source work. If one hundred thousand people each put ten hours’ work into developing a knowledge product, they all get the value
of a million hours of work – about five hundred man-years. And, so do all other people in the world, if the result is made freely available. It isn’t necessarily
blue-eyed altruism that drives people to contribute with unpaid labour; it can just as well be the expectation of getting your efforts paid back several thousand times. Everybody wants Wikipedia, but most also know that this requires that quite a lot of people keep contributing to it. The majority can get a free ride, but some must do the hard work. Enough take that responsibility
on themselves to make Wikipedia – and many other examples of open content and open source – work. It is charity that they get something from themselves, in the shape of content, self-satisfaction and perhaps some status."

Thats very interesting. I can barely contain myself with the joy I feel for being alive right now!

Lets just try to imagine what kind of tools for communication we will have in 10 years time. The Internet definitely has to be taken advantage of.

We havent seen anything yet!

People are so full of creative passion that there is nothing that could become an obstacle for our need to manifest our dreams.

Incentive is dripping from our lips!

What's even more exciting about this is open
source products won't be limited to digital products. Eventually this will begin to enter the physical market via 3D-printers, which is more or less the decentralization of manufacturing and debureaucratization of society.

"Many physical products are distributed digitally and produced decentralized by flexible machines. For example, you can get blueprints for a mobile phone
on the web and have it printed on a 3D printer in a local store, or you can bring your own clothing design in digital form and get it weaved on a digital
weave while you wait."

This has huge implications for our society and gives credence to The Venus Project's proposals.