The Zeitgeist Movement: Global Politics on Trial

I have been a quiet member of the Zeitgeist movement since it's beginning in 2008. I  say "quiet" because there are two fundamental problems with the program that must be addressed before I throw my weight behind them: 1.) The idea of a resource based economy is a fine idea, the transition is not addressed at all. (How are we going to get there?) and 2.) Much of the arguments explored in the 3 Zeitgeist movies are irrelevant to our futures. (Our past beliefs leading to directed actions are one thing, however, it is possible to believe something, yet act distinctively of this belief, knowing that beliefs aren't always based in reality.)

Now, having said all this and ignoring the more conspiratorial aspects of what the Zeitgeist movement's agenda represents, I would like to present this following post, which as a member, I received in my email. The words you about to read speak of a truth that I feel is nearly perfect. 

There is a global Enlightenment taking place. 

It is well spelled out in my book Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self.

The Enlightenment is a realization of a broken system, broken societies, broken agendas, broken methodologies. 

The Individuals are the ones having the realization, (of something they suspected all along.)

A group of individuals having come to this conclusion make up a movement.

That movement is growing.

"In the Enlightenment we woke up from our conscious servitude. In this new Enlightenment we awake from unconscious servitude."

Below is the Zeitgeist post in it's entirety: "Global Politics on Trial."

You may also watch the video.

_______________________________________________

PDF Download:
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/Global%20Politics%20on%20Trial.pdf
 

February 4th 2011, (thezeitgeistmovement.com)

Poised at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, we
continue to find the geopolitical landscape in upheaval. Wars, economic
crises and ever encroaching consolidated national and corporate power
structures are reshaping the world as we know it. In reaction to the
newest set of documents now made public, a contentious debate rages within
capitals and cafes worldwide, most prominently in the Middle East as of
January 30th 2011, the time this statement was written. WikiLeaks’
controversial release of previously classified documents reveal one
undeniable fact: the current methods of global business and public policy
are on trial.

This wave of awareness in response to our current geopolitical and economic
system is becoming apparent for the greater public as we are witnessing the
increasingly vocal response by citizens of Tunisia, Egypt and the Greater
Middle East. With the release of diplomatic cables related to growing
despotism and economic inequality a new wave of individuals are standing up
to demand their right to exist within a free and open society. Not as
Muslims or Christians, Atheists or Jews, but as independent human beings
requesting in greater numbers, their human rights to a free and independent
life. The numbers of citizens standing up for their inalienable rights are
rapidly increasing as the world is taking notice. We have seen the dire
predicament the citizens of Iran suffered through in 2009 as an example,
and this is happening now at a higher frequency as the global economic and
political paradigm becomes more inadequate day by day.



This response in North Africa indicates that people, when given access to
knowledge as to how their system truly operates, are given a choice; they
can either perpetuate a morally bankrupt and economically broken world; or
demand a more equitable alternative. In a world where information is
digitized and ubiquitous, it is of significance to point out that it has
now been confirmed that the entire Internet for Egypt has been temporarily
shut down, along with high bandwidth (3G) wireless networks. If nations
fundamentally operate for the benefit of the people as a primary motivating
factor for public policy, what then would need to be suppressed? Civil
unrest can and will continue, as despots are replaced by slightly more
benevolent or malevolent despots depending on the collective whims of the
body public. The time has come to reappraise our current paradigm.



As previously stated, the disturbing concept of an “internet kill
switch” is not far from becoming a reality in North America or Western
Europe. Senator Lieberman, former U.S Vice Presidential candidate has
proposed such legislation and it is in the U.S congress at the time this
statement has been written. This is what happens when inefficient and
irresponsible political entities no longer operate for the benefit of their
constituents but instead operate to perpetuate the status quo regardless of
who inevitably gets trampled underfoot. Like a wounded animal, it will do
all that it can to guarantee it’s survival no matter how sick it becomes.


WikiLeaks’ supporters and detractors, in both public and private, operate
with the knowledge that information is being suppressed to justify the
status quo of the current geopolitical and economic climate. Both parties
further assert that deception is being utilized to manufacture the consent
of the world's citizens. The reports suggest that the United States has
committed acts contrary to their stated political positions and has also
blatantly disregarded international law. The United States however, is not
alone in that arena. It is now confirmed that other countries including
Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and various states within the European Union
and the Greater Middle East are involved in similar contradictions of
character. Three important questions The Zeitgeist Movement would like to
ask the reader to consider: Does any government, representing the people
and acting on their behalf, have a right to operate clandestinely, and in
many cases, illegally? If such actions are condemned by the majority, what
role does the press play to keep the power structure in check? Most
importantly; isn’t this conduct and behavior an indication of the
fundamental problems within the system itself?

Global citizens of The Zeitgeist Movement realize that the tactics a nation
chooses in order to undermine another nation, and their own people’s
will, stems from economic competition and the constant battle for finite
resources within the modern economic system, as well as their own systemic
perpetuation. Such systems are now proven to be flawed, outdated and
fundamentally corrupt. The documents released thus far have proven to
define the current state of geopolitics in that regard. When interpreted
in the light of modern science and technology and the enormous benefits
they attribute to society, the word "geopolitical", provides no relevance
in regards to quality of life. Science and technology have been solely
responsible for all improvements to the standard of living in our modern
world. Understanding that important fact, The Zeitgeist Movement advocates
a systems approach utilizing science and technology for the intelligent
management of the Earth's resources and the social welfare of it’s
population. This concept in practice is known as a Resource Based Economy.

While neither supporting nor condemning the legality of publicizing
confidential information, The Zeitgeist Movement seeks to address the
issues brought to light via the numerous, previously classified media
released through the WikiLeaks organization. These documents accurately
define the inner workings of our system as it exists today. We, The
Zeitgeist Movement, are entering this public conversation, in order to
discuss the relevance of these published documents in relation to the
global monetary system and the Egyptian uprising.


The undermining of a rival nation's well being was the status quo of the
last century when governments of the world had made it their top priority
to maintain centralized power structures through the use of intimidation,
violence and economic warfare. The data suggests that such systems are
being extrapolated into our present era. The Zeitgeist Movement advocates
the position that such actions are now obsolete and increasingly dangerous.
The global population is realizing that what happens to one will impact
all. We recognize that the current cultural climate has offered the people
limited access to relevant knowledge and produces negative results.
Attributes of governance such as these, undermine mature and informed
decision making. Suppression of dissent, as well as the distortion of
objective truth, can only have negative consequences, and thus, relevant
conclusions can never be achieved. One must ask their representatives: How
can undermining freedoms produce a sense of security? Can we really expect
to create different outcomes utilizing the unsuccessful approaches of the
past? Why is this planet, in one form or another, in a state of perpetual
war? For a just and reasoned society to flourish, open access to knowledge
and it’s expression thereof is essential as it exists as the cornerstone
of freedom.

The “Cablegate” controversy has offered the public an unprecedented
glimpse into the inner workings of government, military and intelligence
agencies. These groups have not met the expectations of a civil and
reasoned society by promoting leverage of the corporate and banking
structure underlying the global economic and political system. Those
aforementioned groups are producing fear and distrust among many segments
of the population. These agencies are currently operating within a
paradigm they were created to oppose. We understand that countries acting
in their self interest will go to great lengths to protect themselves from
each other and any “perceived” threats, as we have seen through the
documents that have been released. The obsession for security is proving
to be more detrimental to society than the potential risk any leak or act
of terrorism can cause. Is the risk of losing one’s liberty a worthwhile
price, and if so, what way of life is then worth defending?



The Zeitgeist Movement realizes that we the people, as one collective
voice, actively seek a mature and rational environment for public and
global discourse. The sole purpose of doing so allows those directly
affected by the outcome, a means to arrive at reasoned and valid
conclusions to solve serious issues that face the world today.

New governing mechanisms with a foundation grounded in reason, social
equality and justice, rather than consolidation of government and cooperate
interests, must be implemented as our current system is reaching the end of
its serviceable life. The documents that have been released so far have
shown us, in regards to meetings among diplomats, that there is a general
fear and mistrust amongst competing national economic systems which are
being undermined by the very institutions that put them into place. Such
policies ferment instability and chaos with a small population reaping the
benefits of a dangerous world. The problems we collectively face are the
direct result of a system that relies on fierce nationalism and protection
of the status quo to survive.

The only way for a free and open society to thrive, is by implementing a
transparent governing mechanism. These new governing mechanisms can
outgrow the dangerous and irrational world we currently live in. Without a
reliable system to counteract aberrant behaviors on all levels, the well
being of a nation’s constituent population will diminish. In the United
States, legislation outside of and within the first amendment of the U.S
Constitution, guarantees freedom of the press as well as whistle blower
protection, was put into place in order to keep government fully
accountable to the people for any actions it chose to engage in.

We have addressed in this public statement that the latest scandal,
"Cablegate" gives credence to the old axiom “The Emperor Wears No
Clothes." In other words, we all collectively understand the fundamental
flaws that exist within our governing mechanism. This current system is not
equipped to handle an ever increasingly complex and technologically
advanced world. As we are discovering, the needs of the global population
are radically different than they were centuries ago, at the birth of the
economic paradigm we live in today.

The current value system, influenced by our current socioeconomic climate,
has produced systemic corruption as well as a trend towards a diminishing
of personal freedoms. In this current system, governments and their
corporate partners are undermining both the public and themselves. It is
essential that accurate information and transparency within representative
governments becomes commonplace to advance the most essential aspects of
freedom.


The current failures for reasonable governance speak for itself.
Throughout history, policy has been dictated by unverifiable and subjective
opinions. We are moving forward with the concept that to arrive at
decisions which produce the most accurate and objective results possible,
for the betterment of all humanity, includes absolute transparency. You
will come to understand, we hold no interest in supporting or opposing
entities which seek to undermine and destroy our present world, but
transcend it. The problems we have defined do not have to define us. We
invite you to look past the headlines and understand that the crimes which
WikiLeaks allegedly uncovered are merely symptoms of an underlying problem
endemic across the spectrum. We cannot legislate these problems away
because every nation will legislate to the benefit of the corporation, the
financial institutions and themselves, rather than the individual citizen.
Finally, legislation cannot effect relevant change due to the inherent
cultural behavior patterns integral to the current socio-economic paradigm,
for, the current system cannot function without said behaviors. It is time
we redefine the world around us, understand how it operates, and construct
a better alternative, using the highest levels of transparency and
technical ability.



-The Zeitgeist Movement Communications Team

The Zeitgeist Movement, which currently has roughly 500,000 members
worldwide, was founded in 2008 by film director Peter Joseph. The film
Zeitgeist Addendum and the recently released film “Zeitgeist: Moving
Forward” exists as a direct response to the documented errors prevalent
in modern society which advocates the realization that the current system
exists as continuation of historical baggage. The activist arm of The Venus
Project, which was founded in Venus Florida by Industrial Designer and
Social Engineer Jacque Fresco, The Zeitgeist Movement seeks to align modern
understanding of science and technology with social design to implement
what is termed “A Resource Based Economy”. An R.B.E relies on the
concept that abundance for all people is a much more relevant motivator
than monetary incentive; with the end result being a healthy and
technologically advanced society. More information can be found at
TheZeitgeistMovement.com and TheVenusProject.com.

Link to Bibliography

In the interest of sharing I have published the books bibliography.
Click Here

the Semantic Deception of Dialectical Theses

The Semantic Deception of Dialectical Theses

~

Part One:

Dissecting the premise and purpose of this series.

Those of you that have read my Shame Theory essay, or the Rampant Ineptitude of Modernity, know me to be critical of some of humanities' designs and tendencies, but also that I hold for us all an ultimate hope. I know that both individuals and groups of people have achieved great things in the past and I have no reason not to expect this trend to continue. Above all it is imperative that this hope remain steadfast and transparent, lest we let our anger overtake our reason. For if we are to agree that there are certain problems in the world, some of which are wholly intentional or partly perpetuated, we must also agree to react reasonably and contemplatively in the face of such maddening information. The causation may need addressing, this is not being denied, merely cautioned against. It is action alone that makes the indelible marks in life, but only right action can prove eudaemonic. Ideally, this is to be a place where you too can throw any contradictory facet of Earth culture under a logical macroscope. It is, in fact, the goal of Anti-Social Engineering, Assignee's Prerogative, the best possible authenticity.

Before we begin examining specific damages, let us develop an appreciation for what is being sought out, as defined by the title of this article. What is, “the semantic deception of dialectical theses?” Everyone knows that a “deception” is a “lie,” so this is as good place a place as any to start our discussions. It isn't always the case that there is a “liar” telling us a “lie” when we are being deceived. A lie is a falsehood, but it is stated. An omission of information could be just as damaging and is still a deception, although not a lie. However, to deceive, to “create a deception” does involve work. Somebody or some thing has to “do something” to deliberately cause you to be deceived. So, stated or not, any deceptiveness we are about to discuss, by the rules of existence and definition, must be intentional. We will be well served by remembering this. You cannot be deceived by erroneous information that occurred “by accident,” this is simply you deceiving yourself with erroneous information. For it to be deception, there must someone doing the deceiving.

What about “a semantic deception?” Semantics are about meaning, in language and in logic. Those of us with an understanding of the art of reason know that language and logic are related both in structure and rules, but for the sake of our discussions today, just know that reducing the two subjects to their fundamentals reveals two key relevancies: Words and ideas can be arranged by formula and any such communications must have the basest possible words/ideas as their foundations. So we must ask, “what do we mean by 'meaning'?” Let's first look at something concrete, what I call an experiential norm, such as “fire.” Fire is a word that represents the idea of fire and, although we can use the word to mean other things, (I was “fired from work,” we raised our rifles and waited for the “order to fire,”) we wish to use the word to mean something being aflame. We too may have countless associations in our fire paradigm, any and every single idea, good, bad or indifferent, that we harbor for fire would be a fair consideration. Still, of the links between ourselves and the physical sensation of flame, it should be fair to say, we will have found a legitimately “fundamental enough” definition in the term “fire burns.” This is the depth of meaning possible with what you could fairly call an internal conversation. Semantics is not hard when our concerns are concrete. “Ouch! Fire hurts!”

When we are considering an abstract idea in our “fire” paradigm, such as “if she is a witch, then we must burn her at the stake,” our opinions may vary and matter greatly. These ideas, where one must simply “come to agree” with some particular bit of information that can't be tested, are strict social norms. When we look at the complexities of the associations we have attached to burning witches at the stake, we can see the problems of any semantic reduction and the opportunity for deception. Your not going to be able to manipulate very many people to agree that fire doesn't burn. Convincing them of whom to burn is much easier. Herein we find our limitations, then end of our objectivity: there is no more reason to attach to our “meaning.” It means what we say it means. This abstraction presents a paradox, “How can a definition mean something other than what we take it as?” Witches are one thing, but in a more modern parlance, perhaps you might be willing to “give up some freedoms for liberty,” or taste “the best cheeseburger in the State.” One of these semantic deceptions is going to matter more than the other, with varying results, according to the bearer of the decision. The goal in our understanding of the semantic deception is twofold: First, we must know that abstract considerations are matters of opinion and that definitions, when reduced properly, should not end up contradictory. Now, let's remember that “a deception” requires a “deceiver.” So if we have a semantic deception, we have a message that is intentionally false, wrong and dangerous, in it's meaning.

The most convoluted aspect of the sentence that gives this piece its title is discovered in the question, “What is the dialectical theses?” To start with, “theses” is the plural of “thesis,” which is simply “a premise or proposition to be held, used or proven.” A premise, (or a proposition,) is just a concept which can be proven true or false. “All birds can fly,” would qualify. (Not true.) “Fire burns wood, producing heat.” Yes, indeed it does. “Witches are made of wood and therefore, if you light a woman on fire and she burns, she is a witch.” Um... Wait a minute, let's talk about this. There is more than one proposition being stated here and this helps demonstrate a literal aspect of the dialectical theses. In order for you to agree with this last statement, you must agree with all the separate statements. “Witches are made of wood.” False. “If you light a woman on fire she burns.” True, sort of. “If you light a woman on fire and she burns, she is a witch.” Untrue, all women lit on fire will burn, witch or not.” (This may all seem very silly to you, as you read this on your computer screens in the 21^st century. It isn't. It just wasn't that long ago. Certainly not “long enough ago.”)

So let's look at “dialectical.” Taken alone, as a word, my dictionary defines it as, “1. Relating to the logical discussion of ideas and opinions. 2. Concerned with or acting through opposing forces. These “forces” could be social, (such as the semantics we wish to discuss,) or just the metaphysical contradictions that life throws our way. (If you wish to learn about the deeper concerns of reality and our role in it, read my book, Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self. Then read Camus' the Myth of Sisyphus and Wittgenstein's Logical Investigations.) To be blunt about the concept of the philosophical dialectic, it is a tug of war we have with ourselves when ever we are confronted with combative internalization, regardless of source.

“The Dialectical Thesis,” as it were, is something a little more defined. It, in fact, has a formula that is surprising simple. It started with Plato and (pretty well) ended with Georg Hegel, which is why it is often referred to as the Hegelian Dialectic. In normal language, it goes like this, “I know stealing is wrong. I have to feed my starving children. I will steal some bread to feed my starving children.” Or, “Lying is wrong. Lying gets me out of trouble if it's clever. I'm in trouble. I'll lie.” In terms of our own observations of the external world it might go something like this, “One must support the troops or one is considered a traitor. I don't wish to be considered a traitor. I'll support the troops.” Or, “Fundamental radicalism is dangerous. Fundamental radicalism gets results. I'll be a fundamental radical.” Maybe you're part of the business world, where it could be stated, “Product A is of poor quality but sells well because it's inexpensive. Product B is of good quality but does not sell because it's expensive. I'll raise the price of product A.” In all of these examples there are three parts to our “idea equation.”

Part A is the thesis, a proposition stating a full abstract idea, subject and predicate, without being concrete. Such as, “All philosophers are wise.” (A matter of opinion. We are not going to waste our time arguing concrete information, such as, “This philosopher is male.”)

Part B is the antithesis, again, a proposition stating a full abstract idea in opposition to part A. Such as “All philosophers are not wise.” (Still, a matter of opinion. We could spend the rest of our lives arguing what “philosopher” means, or “wise.”)

Part C is the synthesis. It is the agreement that the two opposing propositions find themselves at. It is the epitome of Aristotle's golden mean. All things meet in the middle, because if they don't, all things are chaotic and confrontational. Yet, the middle wouldn't exist without the two extremes. There is no mean without the chaos, and vice versa. The grandfather clocks pendulum swings back and forth to two extremes, but it is only in the middle that we get tick and tock, pushing us forward.

The dialectic is part of the inception and spread of science or its method. It is the base for all argument, inquiry, discovery and truth. Scientist or not, everyone uses it, every day. However, very few people think about their use of it, even fewer examine that use, still fewer make changes to their lives by way of that examination. If we wander through our lives without examining the decisions we make, the things we believe, the actions we take based on these decisions and beliefs, we are akin to a blind rat, scrambling randomly through a finite maze, responding only to that which we bump against, repeatedly. This is not right, proper or healthy. This is the total sum of what is wrong with the human species, this is the reason we suffer. Due to our position and power on this planet, this too is why it suffers under our hand. This will end, the only question is, “what are we going to do about it in the mean time?” (Interesting phrase, “in the mean time.”)

Here we can put together the entire sentence and discover its full meaning. The semantic deception of dialectical theses is the opportunity for us to do some anti-social engineering. We can recognize contradictions in life for what they are, reduce their intentionality into something revealing truth and decide wisely upon the value of perpetuating the ideas presented. If someone suggests that consumerism is the foundation of democracy, or that morality must be legislated, or that, money makes the world go 'round, or that my God is better than your God, we can examine these ideas, decide authentically, act appropriately, promotively.

This is the challenge: when it comes to any dialectical thesis, the tug of war to find the mean, there can be no known truth. To suggest that there are "truths," or to otherwise intimate that this or that opinion shall be considered correct, particularly if placed outside the mean, in either extreme, is to perpetuate the semantic deception. To realize that this deception exists is step one to defeating it, to understand who delivers it and why is step one to stopping its dissemination.

This is the goal: everything done, must be done consciously and virtuously. It is the path to eudaemonia. We begin by deciding to begin. So decide. We can continue on this path of following greed and competition or we can start a new path, a logical path, one of co-operation and promise. We are the creatures who, above all others, rationalize. It is time to start using this power to do the right things, rather than to trick ourselves into believing we're doing the right things. 

In the comments section below, you will find modern impressions of the phenomenon and a chance to win a book. Make sure you click the comments! 

Existence doesn't matter to God

As I've stated before, I believe in God and I am a reasonable man. Atheists do not have a monopoly on scientific or rational thinking, regardless of what Richard Dawkins says. I know what a belief is and I'm entitled to mine. 

My argument for the existence of God is simple. Matter and Anti-Matter are real. That means there are things and “not-things” and sometimes particles pop out of existence and anti-matter particles pop into existence. I interpret this to mean that there are things in this universe that hold power regardless of whether or not they exist. Perhaps to put it another way, there are things in this universe for which existence matters not. For me, God fits into this category nicely as a consciousness,outside the rules of being and any concept of time or space. 

If the Universe collapses into nothingness tomorrow, it won't matter to God. He is beyond needing to be anything. (Please excuse my referring to God as “he.”) The reason I put “God” in this place, is because this place exists and I wish for one to explain the other. Obviously, this is where my logic breaks down and I am content here. If God lives outside the paradigm of needing to exist, I'm sure there isn't going to be much fervour over a silly thing like human reasoning, let alone the biased desires of one man's beliefs.

But, “what” is “God.” Here we have a problem and we must point to whatever baggage this particular deity carries. Once we start needing to claim that God is this or that we are again playing our very favourite games of categorization and distinction. I am not keen to play, not in this arena. God is not experiential in my understanding. God remains unknown. So if the intention leaves me alone, by not defining God and allowing my “God paradigm” to stand in as what God is, I am able to find my eudaemonia.

It's clear to me that God and the existence of God, is not in any way provable. However, my estimation of the transparency verses the force is my own. I'm perfectly fine with not knowing and I have no one insisting I do more than this. (Perhaps you have.) There is still some force to the intention and as I am likely to not be “allowed” to view God as I do, from within any particular religion, I score it with slightly more force than transparency.

God is extremely mysterious and probably not evaluatable in any way. I don't accept the ideas other people have about God. I doubt very highly that the Bible is “the word of God.” The only thing keeping me from finding this evaluation to be completely uneudaemonic is that I have my own interpretation.

This, in a similar fashion to my consideration of transparency versus force, is slightly to the side of hyper-manipulation. I feel that I desire to believe in God, for the reasons I have stated, but it is still a desire, which must side with emotion before logic. I desire, I hope and I wish for there to be a God. The existence of God is welcomed in my Universe. However, this score is entirely contingent on my ability to keep my God paradigm as I've defined. If someone wants to start changing things on me, turning God into something that can be understood, I'm likely to find myself strongly resisting the intention.

I think I would be happy to find God, if that were possible, but my happiness is not at all dependant upon it. As for the virtue to be found in the mean, I think it has been described well by my theism. Blind faith is excess, blind denial is deficiency. As, on the question of God, we are all blind, the mean leaves God a mystery.

The question is, why can't we?

Eudaemonia

In two installments the ancient idea of eudaemonia is redefined and perfected by introducing the requirement that it be tied to "promotive" action rather than "flourishment," in terms of our happiness.
Part One: Eudaemonia
Part Two: Promotive Eudaemonia
An exclusive at Science20.com