The Best Resource Based Gift Economy Transition Presentation I’ve Ever Seen

How can the transition happen, what would a possible transition look like, and is the transition we are talking about even unique in Earth’s history? And what can we do today?

Sebastian Chedal presents the connection between current world changes and past evolutionary patterns. We look at evolutionary cycles, energy curves, growing cycles of innovation and adaptation.

Concepts from Spiral Dynamics, Ken Wilber, Integral Philosophy, Venus Project, Permaculture and Gift Economics.

The final part of this presentation analyses global initiatives related to the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement so that people who are interested in making a change today have options regarding where they can get involved. Finally local Portland chapter initiatives are also mentioned. For more information, and links to the resources mentioned, please visit

Now that The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement have split up, it is appropriate to say that instead of ‘The Venus Project’ as and overlying structure, it should be a ‘resource based economy’ as the overlaying structure.

The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement splitting up

The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement is ‘splitting up’.

Personally, I think this is a good thing. Ever since I heard about The Venus Project (TVP), The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) and a Resource Based Economy (RBE), I thought that TZM should not be “the activist arm” of TVP. Rather, TZM  should be “the activist arm” of a Resource Based Economy.

A resource based economy can be many things, and The Venus Project holds but one of these solutions. The notion of RBE can not be defined by a single organization alone, like TVP or TZM. RBE has to be an ‘open system’, where all the people of this planet has to contribute. And as far as I am concerned, RBE is still a concept that has to be developed and take root deep in the mind of Humanity. Just like the notion of money and ownership is rooted in the mind of humanity now, the notion of a money- and propertyless society has to replace the old notion and become even deeper rooted. And this has to happen through the spreading of information through all possible channels.

TVP has a lot of good drawings and suggestions for new design and technology, but I feel they are lacking somewhat in understanding humans. I agree with many things that Mr. Jacque Fresco says, but I also disagree with a few.

RBE is a concept that has to take root in the mind of humanity, and the main aspect of it is not TVP and its drawings, it is the notion of a money- and propertyless society where we share and give instead of trade, buy and sell. This is the core of RBE. Sharing and giving. No matter how much we automate things or how many machines we have, this has to be and is the core of a resource based economy. Actually, it has nothing to do with technology, but everything to do with our mindset and values, and how we see the world. Any technological development and how we use technology will come as a result of this mindset. Actually, I do think that TVP have the same view. It is only that it tends to get a focus on machines and technology instead of humans and values.

The Venus Project has undoubtedly added valuable designs and thoughts to the pool of the knowledge of Mankind. Knowledge that shall and will be utilized in all ways possible. There is no doubt about that. But Jacque Fresco says outright that ‘we can’t create this new world without TVP’, which is a huge mistake. To rely on one person’s thoughts and designs for the whole planet is not only foolish, but impossible. There are too many creative and intelligent beings on this planet for this to happen. Not to speak of too many different preferences and cultures.

I think it is good that The Zeitgeist Movement is now on it’s own, and realizes that it is a ‘resource based economy’ that is the ‘umbrella term’, not ‘The Venus Project’. RBE can come in many different shapes and forms, not only TVP’s form. We can even have RBE without any new technology, with old wooden houses and horses and carts, which is what we actually had. In old times, there were many societies based on sharing and giving in stead of trading with each other. And the land was not owned by anyone. As said, RBE is not really about technology, but our mindset. Yes, technology will evolve, and we will use it, but technology is not the main point. Sharing, giving and collaborating freely is the point. A money- and propertyless economy is the point. A caring and compassionate society is the point.

TVP think that ‘everything has a technical solution’, and many things do, but then they tend to forget that Humans are not ‘technical solutions’. Well, our bodies are somewhat ‘technical’, but Humans also have feelings, thoughts and aspirations of their own. Humans has to realize for themselves this new world. Humans can not be told ‘this is the way things are, no go and do it!’. No, humans has to get their own experiences, and the mindset they are in has to change gradually. Unless the total mindset of Humanity changes away from trading, ownership and individual power towards sharing, collaboration and common strength, we will not get a resource based economy or anything like it on this planet. No matter how technologically developed we are.

One thing that seem totally absent in TVP is the understanding of consciousness.  How everything is connected, where the Life Force comes from, what thoughts really are, what mind is, what the soul is, why we are here and what our purpose really is. They seem to believe that absolutely everything we do is based on ‘conditioning by society’. Of course we get conditioned by society, but that doesn’t explain everything. One can ask ‘what conditions society’? Where does it all start?

Why does Mr. Fresco do what he does? Is it only conditioning? Then why didn’t his brother, or someone with similar ‘conditioning’ do what Fresco does? He clearly tells us that he went against the current in his young days. He didn’t want to stand up and sing the american national anthem because he believed in the whole world as our common land, not only USA. Now, if everyone around him was conditioned to one thing, why did he go the other way?

So, where did it come from, if not his conditioning? His DNA? It is now shown that also the DNA is not constant, but does change in regards to, yes, conditioning. But still, conditioning doesn’t explain all behavior. Personally, I believe that this ‘third element’, the element that is is not heritage (DNA), and not conditioning, is the element that comes with us when we are born. It is a personality and aspirations we bring with our consciousness from life to life.

Personally, I believe that we are consciousness, that everything is consciousness, that this world is created out of our thoughts, that the fear and the EGO is the basic things that are stopping us from reaching our goals, and that Love, Joy, Bliss and positive feelings will create positive results in this world. And that the search for Fulfillment is what is driving us to do the things we do. And this fulfillment is based on something invisible. Something that is inherent in us when we are born.

To me these questions are CRUCIAL to a Resource Based Economy. Because if we don’t have money or trade or barter, we would have to think totally different in terms of motivation. TVP’s motivation seems to be to eradicate war, pollution, natural disasters, etc. etc., which is all good, of course. But then what? What would be the meaning of life when we have eradicated all of that? TVP doesn’t seem to have an answer for this other than that ‘there will always be new problems to solve’. This might be well and good for TVP, but not all the world’s people, and certainly not me. I need deeper answers and reasons to live.

The struggle we have on this planet today, is not technological or scientific, it is a struggle of the EGO. We have to leave our egos behind to get this new world, RBE or whatever you want to call the ‘system’. In any case, a new ‘system’ alone can not save us, we have to bring with us the realization that ‘we are all one’. I am not saying that we can get rid of our egos completely. No, we only have to be aware of them, understand them and not let our words and actions be guided by them. Being guided by the ego is being guided by fear. Instead we have to look to Love and Peace in our guidance. Sounds like cliche’s, and they are. But there’s a reason why things become cliche’s, and that’s because cliches tend to be true.

I’ve criticized TVP more than TZM here for a reason. TZM was rightly enough initiated by Peter Joseph, but now TZM consists of a conglomerate of chapters and groups all over the planet, with many working diligently to spread awareness about RBE. This is not only the way it should be, but the only way it can be if this information is to reach any significant proportion of the population of this globe. Remember that not many people had heard about TVP before PJ made his films and TZM was started.

TVP, it seems to me, still consists basically of two persons holding the reins tight, not to let anyone interpret any of their information in their own way. They obviously also want the information to be spread across the globe, but seem to be so protective about their work that they won’t let anyone one else touch it without their approval. I understand that when someone has spent their life on designing so much houses, buildings, transportation, cities and more, credit is wanted, and a say in the building as well. But they need to let go of some control if they want their creations to see the light of day. The blueprints can be licensed out to contractors and countries around the world right now, and I am sure many would be interested in TVPs designs if they only let them out. There are many ways to do things, not only one.

I believe that the people of TVP are most sympathetic, intelligent and creative people, and that what they have done is nothing but incredible. And I believe they mean only well. I owe TVP all credit for putting me on the track of a resource based economy. I would like nothing better than to see this world become reality, but I hope and believe that all of us will create it together. That there will be room for many people’s designs and plans, and that we can and will have an open and fruitful communication and collaboration in creating this new society, where The Zeitgeist Movement still works to raise awareness about RBE, get people to think, inform and educate, while The Venus Project does the same, each in their own way, but towards our common goal.

Here are some links about what I think TVP is lacking in their thoughts about this new world:

The Moneyless Manifesto


The Wealth of Networks

The Commoner



The Resource Based GIFT Economy

Resource based economy

A resource based economy is a system based on the assessment of available resources and the development and distribution of those resources. A ‘resource’ can be a natural resource, like wind, oil, sun, water, plants and minerals. It can also be a human resource in the form of human ingenuity, human labour and human compassion. Lastly, it can be a technological resource defined by the level of technological advancement Humanity finds itself at any given time. The technological resource can play a huge role in the development and management of all the other resources, keeping in mind that the technological resource comes from the human resource of ingenuity. A resource based economy is a system where all the planet’s (and non-planetary, such as the sun’s) resources are taken into account in building and maintaining a sustainable and functional world for everyone.

Gift economy

A gift economy is a ‘system’, if one can call it that, where, instead of exchanging goods and services, those are given to each other. There is no ‘transaction’ taking place. The gift economy is alive and well in the institution closest to most people’s hearts, the family, and have been the traditional social system of man since time immemorial. In a family, goods and services are largely given, without any explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards. There is also a huge gift economy in the world today, in the form of voluntarism, with millions of people doing work for free for a host of good causes.

In a sense, the universe is a ‘gift economy’. At birth we are given all of what this universe and planet has to offer. Nature gives in abundance if we let it and don’t destroy it. Mothers gives in abundance their love to their children. Dad’s do out of love whatever it takes to take care of their families. Brothers and sisters help each other the world over to learn and love. Friends help friends, especially in times of need, but also bring them over for dinner. Birds give their song for free to sweeten a spring or summer’s day.

The internet is filled with free services. Software producers give the results of their work as freeware and shareware. And there are thousands of organizations that provide free goods and services all over the world. We see that there is a widespread praxis of the gift economy, where goods and services are provided for free for each other, helping people in need, or simply giving something for free, without any hidden agenda. I think we can safely say that without the gift economy the world would not go ’round.

A combination

Today, though, above the gift economy, is the market economy, trying in vain (if it is even trying) to develop, manage and distribute the planet’s resources in the best way. As we have seen during the last 100 years, the market economy is in no position to handle the planet’s resources in the best interest of everyone. The economy that works on the level of countries and in international affairs we call the ‘macro economy’. The economy between individuals and businesses we call ‘micro economy’.

So, what would be the winning combination in the ‘new world’? Well, I think the answer would be this:

Our ‘micro economy’ would be the Gift Economy. This would determine the economy between individuals and groups.

Our ‘macro economy’ would be the Resource Based Economy. This would determine the global resource based economic decisions.

Resource Based Economy and Gift Economy goes hand in hand. In a money-, barter- and trade-less society a Gift Economy has to be the basis for human interaction. The main value norms has to reflect the benefits of simply giving to each other, rather than trading or bartering. In a Gift Economy, trust plays a major role. Not just in each other, but also in Life itself, trusting that whatever need you have will be met. By all means, trust plays a big role in today’s economy also.

So, with the basic norms and values in place, we can truly start to build this planet to it’s optimum state. Optimum, that is, from today’s possibilities. It will of course always develop when we find new and better solutions. There’s no end to this. But, as said, with the norms and values of the Gift Economy as the foundation, we utilize the Resource Based Economy to develop, manage and allocate resources in accordance to the needs of Humanity, including all peoples, animals and plants and the whole biosystem of this planet and it’s surroundings.

I hereby announce the birth of THE RESOURCE BASED GIFT ECONOMY, with the word ‘gift’ emphasizing the importance of the value system and the mindset in this new economy. That we all have to work together in this, giving our time and knowledge freely to build this new world. To me, this was what was lacking in the concept of the resource based economy with the strong emphasis on technology.

Now, we have the human aspect in the Gift Economy, and the technological aspect in the Resource Based Economy. When we put the two together we get the ultimate solution to the dilemma we face today.

The Venus Project – Stockholm Lecture July 2010

I was so fortunate as to meet Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows in Stockholm and was able to film their lecture. So, here is the recording of their lecture in Stockholm July 24. 2010. In this lecture they explain The Venus Project and a resource based economy.

Total time: About 2 hours.

First hour is lecture. Second hour is Q & A.

The lecture is about how our mind set and the monetary system is the source of the problems in the world today, and how a resource based economy, a society without money or trade, an updating of our values and mind set, and relevant use of technology and knowledge can develop our civilization to become a truly sustainable society with abundance for everyone.

Filmed by Harald Sandø and Vesa Rahkola.
Edited by Harald Sandø

The lecture was arranged by The European Organisation for Sustainability (EOS) and The Zeitgeist Movement Sweden.



Zeitgeist – Moving Forward review

Peter Joseph’s latest documentary is setting world record in simultaneous worldwide screenings on the same day. 15th of January 2011 the film was showed in over 60 countries on over 300 locations, something that has not happened with any other documentary to date, as I am told.

This has been a highly awaited film, in other words. Two days ago, the YouTube version was released, and it has already over 340.000 views. In TWO days! Not to speak of the comments, which just passed 12.000 as I write this. The film has almost 12.000 likes and only about 300 dislikes.

It seems like the world has truly been waiting for, not only this movie, but a change on the planet. Even though there seems to be ‘business as usual’ around the world, there is a growing movement going on. Not just the Zeitgeist Movement, but in general. People want change all over the world.

So, to the film. It is a 2 hour 40 minutes long movie with lot’s of info. For me personally a lot of it was not news, but I guess for most people it is. I missed more transitional descriptions and more direct info on what a resource based economy really will be like. The film started out with a rather long winded talk about genetics and how we are not really bound by our genes, but rather more shaped by society. This is a discussion that has been going on for years among scientist.

Speaking about scientist and science. The film seems to advocate ‘the scientific method’ as the answer to most problems. It forgets to take scientists into consideration. The scientific method is well and good and is definitely the best method one can use to determine whether something is a good solution or not. The problem, though, is that scientists are just as often as ‘common people’ run by emotions and peer pressure rather than intellectual reason. There are continuous examples of this throughout history, and the ‘genes versus society’ is one field where this has been rampant.

Another thing about the movie, as with the Zeitgeist Movement in general, is the utter worshipping of The Venus Project, as along with science is the answer to everything. The truth is that TVP is not thought through thoroughly by far. It lacks both social descriptions and possible transition alternatives.

In such a long movie I would have expected more detailed descriptions on how to get there and how a resource based economy will work in praxis. Still, for all of the worlds people who still doesn’t know about what the worlds problems stem from and haven’t heard about a resource based economy, it serves it’s purpose. Except I am afraid it will suffer many shattering comments when put under scrutiny in classrooms around the world.

A Science Of Intuition By Sidney Martinez

A Science Of Intuition
By Sidney Martinez

Many are well acquainted with “The Modern Scientific Method” its the dominant norm of all discovery. It is the underpinning of all Western Philosophy from the end of the days of Monarchs to the modern days of Oligarchs. Of course this wasn’t always the case before the Modern Scientific Method existed a more Associative Method of both reasoning and discovery based on religion. The Scientific Method arose as a reaction to the Associative Method which dominated before. The Scientific Method was more flexible and fluid then the old Religious Associative Method. Since all things discovered or concluded by science were open to change and progress it certainly trumped the non changing religious conclusions. The Modern Scientific Method had many advantages over the old associative method of declaring truths followed by creating chains of association to go along with these truths that were later linked back to their starting point ie original declared truth. The Modern Scientific Method still differed from the original or “Ancient Scientific Method”in a few ways. In this work we will compare and contrast the Scientific Method used by The Ancients such as The Greeks, Chinese, Indians, etc. and compare it with the Modern Scientific Method to see the differences. We will show how the Observation and Intuition were used in conjunction with each other by ancients peoples. While in contrast to todays world where Modern Science simply writes off Intuition as Mysticism and lumps it together with the Associative Method expounded by Nicean as well as other Dogmatic and Orthodox Abrahamic Faiths.

For science everything it discovers seem to be open to alteration yet when it comes to any suggestions of altering the method itself suddenly the scientific method is dogma and unalterable gospel. In fact the usual conclusion is that the ancients were even more backwards then those who lived in the Dark Ages. Yet on the other hand as more and more observable evidence is being unearthed such as ancient clock work devices, steam engines, light bulbs, batteries, etc. Some in academia are being forced to admit maybe the ancients weren’t so backwards. In fact this whole notion that the ancients were more backwards and things worse off then the Dark Ages is the result of successful propaganda campaigns by clergy from the Byzantine empire on into the Dark Ages and High Middle Ages. In fact the so called Scientific Method of our modern day still accepts and defends certain notions passed onto it by the very Religious non-sense it claims to rail against.

Intuition and Observation

The biggest misconception of ancient people that Modern Science seems to have inherited from Orthodox Nicean Religions (IE any religion that accepts the Nicean Creed) are that Ancient people were backwards thinking and very primitive in comparison to the modern age. Further they tend to reinforce that no advances could have existed that surpassed the level of technology of The Roman Civilization. Of course this runs very counter to all the evidence that has been recently discovered not the least of which was an Egyptian Steam Engine used to open temple doors. Of course the world in which these things existed was a very different world and ancient humans looked at the world in a very different way.

Picture if you will that your citizen of ancient civilization and your walking through the woods to some festival. First off every tree you see would look bright and gleaming with energy you would have been raised from birth knowing that every tree had energy flowing throw it. You’d know every animal in that forest had the same energy flowing throw it as well. If it was at night time you’d might see an owl perch on a tree and know it was surely Minerva giving you a sign that new knowledge was on its way. Of course by this idea of Minerva landing its not that you think some invisible man or women flew down from the heavens and morphed into an owl to visit. Rather you’d understand that the specific energy flowing through all Owls is one relating to knowledge and you’d make this association in your mind. Further this Goddess manifested is closer to a Mnemonic device of association. A way to represent the understanding you have about this knowledge notion and association about Owls. Sorry to break the truth to the scientific community who lumps all spiritualists in the same boat but the more Paganistic societies didn’t believe in a bunch of Invisible Men and Women in the sky. They knew that these were all iconography created to both pay homage to the beauty and splendor of the natural environment as well as many times ways to explain how something happened in the past. Over time both legends, myths, and stories merged and people did believe that enough focus on specific Icons associated with collective notions would create specific results a person may want. Through intuition it was a well known fact that if some had an image to focus on and an idea of a result they wanted to manifest through enough focus they could manifest what they wanted. A God or Goddess was more of a mass collective Poppet used for focusing and centering.

In fact the whole notion was based on Intuition which is derived from imagination. In this process however the Observed Method was not absent. Quite the contrary this scientific method which modern science claims is a new invention was in fact part of a larger and more Ancient Scientific Method. The Ancient Scientific Method used both Meta-Materialism and Materialist notions it used Intuition and Observation to make discoveries. In the modern day the two methods are separate yet both the Intuitive Method and Observed Method are two parts of a greater whole. The Intuitive Method relies on direct and repetitive experience leading to a rationalization followed by understanding and conclusion. Sometimes this is called a hunch of course the modern person has no clue how to properly use their Intuition to reach well reasoned and understood insights. Rather they will simply write off any hunch’s they develop if they can find observable evidence that leads to thesis evidence and conclusions. The Fact of the matter is that while modern science writes off Intuition the ancients and especially mystics embraced Intuition and Observation together as one whole inseparable from each other. In fact many of the ancient mystics who were supposedly so backwards thinking were the inventors and scientists of the ancient world. For them they consciously used intuition as part of their conscious thought process and it worked in sync with the observed method. One of the greatest by products of ancient humans conscious intuition process was the development of philosophy. Philosophers of the Ancient World were also Scientists, Mathematicians, Numerologists, Astrologers, Astronomers, Inventors and Mystics. Of course this was all before we had so many labels to separate these things from each other.

In ancient Greece we find many inventions rumored to have existed as well as evidence others did actually exist. When modern people think of Robotics they think of modern day robotics yet the first robotics may have been developed by ancient Greeks. Rumors abound of ancient automaton aka clockwork men which were non electronic robots running on hydraulics and gears. Legend even speak of Clockwork men armed with swords used in both defensive and offensive military capacity. No evidence of clockwork men used in military applications has been found as of yet. On the other hand one clock work device has been found called The Antikythera mechanism which was a small mechanical computer used to calculate astronomical positions. One theory about its origins puts it as having come from Rhodes which has a long standing tradition of mechanical engineering. Another such interesting discovery is the Baghdad Battery which through testing has been proven to be able to get a light bulb lit. In fact its been proposed that the Baghdad battery was used to power ancient Egyptian Light Bulbs to illuminate the inside of pyramids, temples. Of course academia with its lack of intuition quickly dismisses this theory. In China Gunpowder was developed through the Ancient Scientific Method, In India Hindu Mystics concluded that “Weight Causes Falling” or that the weight of a mass causes it to fall to earth. In other wards they discovered gravity centuries before it was rediscovered in the West. Heron in Egypt developed a Steam Engine the worlds first centuries before it would be rediscovered again. In fact right up until the rise of the church the level or technology of had reached pre-industrialization. By 300 CE sanitation and sewer systems where in use, piping, flush toilets, kitchens with stoves and pans with cooking oil, hang gliders, mechanical clocks, light bulbs, batteries, coin operated machines, toys with moving parts, bronze tanks, flame throwers, and more things that we’ll never know existed since the evidence was purposely destroyed. In fact if you brought someone from 300 CE Rome to 1700’s Italy they would pretty much familiar with all the technology around them. All this just goes to show how far the so called mysticism of the ancients brought society forward. Of course the main difference between ancient machines and machines developed in the 1700’s is that the driving force was not production. But nor was it concerned with helping to free up people from physical labor. While capital was something associations of Merchants (the first corporations) were concerned with producing and generating this capital didn’t yet require massive scale production. This is not to say that the technologies to free humans up from the need for doing manual labor didn’t exist at this time. Quite the contrary the technology did exist its just that in this time period the only force capable of bringing industrialization about would have been some sort of slave revolution that brought about a Democratic and Resource Based Economy. This would have been the only development in antiquity which could have oriented scientific advancement towards freeing people up from the burdens of the same manual labor that kept the Roman state highly productive. Perhaps the masses of ancient people saw this possibility and began wondering why technology wasn’t used to take over the jobs previously held by slaves. Whatever the case maybe the rise of the church brought with it a 1400 year setback for science. By labeling all the scientists (Mystics) of the ancient world heretics they used associative thinking to label anything they ever developed heretical as well.

The Associative Method

Through the process of association if a person is declared heretical one must presuppose this is truth based on the fact that the truth has been declared the truth. Further associations are the only thing you can attach to presupposed truth according to the Associative Method. So this thinking brought about that if all these people were heretics then so are their inventions and writings. So therefore Math, Toilets that flush, Sanitation, Sewer Systems, Medicine, Light Bulbs, Steam Engines, anything that improves the common people’s life is demonic . By the same token however metallurgy and any military technology which continued to be improved was godly. Whats interesting is that the Roman Corporations (See On Illuminati Pt. 3 Rise of Templar Banking for more info) aka Merchant Associations made more money producing and selling weapons then developing domestic technologies. It was almost as if someone deliberately wanted technology set back 1400 years. Whats more is the bankers who have always been Knights or Roman Equestrians/ Horsemen (Sir Alan Greenspan Knight of England anyone?). Thought the following centuries from Byzantine to The Franks, to the Crusades and so on the Knights went out and made sure the Associative Method was in use.

Of course this couldn’t last forever and the controllers of society knew this. Throughout the dark ages many witches were burned at the stake and of course the criteria was different in every case. In truth a real Witch is a type of Scientist at least according to the Ancient Scientific Method. But whats more any form of thinking which violated the system of thought based on the Associative Method could be punished by death. For example if you made potions or herbal salves that helped injured and sick people you must be a witch. On the other hand if you found a sick person and concluded possession or a wounded person and concluded the wound should be bled out your godly. If you thought the world was round and that you could sail around it you were a heretic. However if you associatively concluded the world was flat because you saw flat land around you then you were godly. In fact this brings us to the point about how the church brought about a form of Materialist thinking. In the society that the church had supplanted the ancients didn’t believe Gods to be invisible men and women in the sky talking to them. Neither did they believe the world they could see with their eyes was absolutely physical either. Even before the technology to prove matter is made up nothing but slower moving light or energy they knew this was the case. The Church on the other hand told them that this was wrong and that they had to accept this physical world as reality and obey all the laws of an invisible and jealous man in the sky who reminiscent of a police state with high tech surveillance network was able to see them and judge them. They invented in fact this idea of fearing such a reality in people centuries before dictators would have this 1984 type technology, The controllers of society couldn’t create it in actuality so the next best thing was to fabricate an invisible man in the sky who could spy on and monitor everyone. Of course this idea was further backed up with the notion that after you die this same invisible dictator in the sky would judge you and deliver punishment. Through associative thinking there was of course no other way to see it and in fact associative thinking is attached to emotion. If one thinks associatively for a long enough period of time the mind will invent experience’s to justify their reality to them. When the Associative Method is all thats used Intuition and Observation are considered deluded and all perspective and information presented by either or both has to automatically be ruled out. Whats more is the Associative Method can delude the mind so much to the point that hallucinations may even occur. Which would definitely explain how Nicean Monks can actually see, experience, and chit chat with Jesus or a specific saint. How modern science has concluded that all paranormal phenomena is the same exact thing as the hallucinatory state one reaches through associative thinking is beyond me.

The thing that always gets me though is when I realize how advanced we’d be if society hadn’t plunged into the dark ages like it did. In fact if hypothetically Spartacus led slaves to dismantle the Roman State and create Democracy we’d be 1400 years more advanced then we are now. We wouldn’t have developed weapons of war to the extent we’ve developed them too. Guns would have probably still been created to be used for hunting in the settling of new areas. Machine Guns probably would have never been developed or bombs, or tanks. In fact all scientific advancement would have been oriented towards better methods for management of resources the common heritage of people in fact money would have been completely done away with. When such a society made contact with the Native Americans no genocide would have ever taken place. Factories and power plants that pollute the way they do would have been designed in ways that had little impact on the environment. I’m not saying things would have been perfect if the church never existed just that they would be allot better. Of course people in the Middle Ages didn’t know that the church controlled all information about the past. So while things seemed backwards they told the masses that things had been even worse before.

The Age of Unreason

When the world finally grew tired of the Associative thinking that ruled the previous 1400 years. Of course being raised in that society the thinkers of that period had hangovers of associative thinking coupled with unconscious intuitive thinking. First thing those who developed the Scientific Method did was accept the church teaching that they should focus on the here and now material world. Further that they should except this world as being absolutely physical the only thing they didn’t take from this teaching was the part about some fascist dictator judging them when they die. Further they believed the idea that an invisible all seeing dictator existed in the sky was crazy. Where they went wrong was that they took this conception of God as the invisible dictator in the sky to be a representation of what Pagans believed. In a very unscientific manner they concluded that the Pagans must have believed in several invisible people in the sky without actually investigating or finding evidence to put forward such a conclusion. They simply took the propaganda of the church that the previous society had been worse off at face value. As a result both Intuition that science will never admit took place and the associative method developed what it thought to be a The Scientific Method. Of course what they created was science without imagination or intuition and instead developed a cold calculated materialist method that blindly accepted an external reality that can’t even be confirmed to exist. Case and point anything you’ve ever seen with your eyes has always existed in the past. Nothing you can see with your eyes can ever be perceived as it is in the exact moment in which your interacting with it. For this reason anything that can be repetitively observed is always older then the image of it I’m seeing in my mind of it.

For this and many other reasons there really no experiment you can ever run or perform that proves the material world is actually here that won’t in some way be biased by the eyes. Quite frankly until the modern day observed method that keeps referring to itself as the scientific method has no right to call itself scientific until such time as it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the world in which it exists in fact actually exists absolute beyond all uncertainty. Until then there is nothing truly scientific going on with the so called scientific method now if you include Intuition with Observation like the Ancient Scientific Method did well then at least then were getting somewhere. At least in that instance the tool of discovery and problem solving is at least skeptical about the very world around rather then rigidly and dogmatically materialist about something we can never be absolutely certain about. For the Scientific Method to truly be what its trying we first need to start with the only thing that we can actually be sure of which is “I think therefore i am”. Thats it the one Insight developed from Intuition that I know to be true from this Intuition we can next say that I see therefore something exists outside of me. I can’t be sure of what exactly it is or if its even here but one thing I can be certain of is that through Intuition and Observation combined I can work with it, learn about it, and change it.

From Unreason to Reason

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.” -Albert Einstein
Of course the greatest nail in the coffin for the scientific method comes from one of the most brilliant thinkers ever produced during The Age of Pisces. Using the Ancient Scientific Method he developed The Theory of Relativity and Special Relativity as well as Energy = Mass and Constance Squared or E=MC2. Of course being a modern scientist many people have the strange misconception that he was a Materialist or that more popular term Atheism. Atheism which literally means to believe in nothing of course Buddhists and many Mystics believe in Nothing as well. They believe that if you reach a state of Nothingness where your simply awareness in a sea of Nothingness everything is at peace. This Nothingness is bliss or Nirvana and from here is where Intuition first comes about at least according to Buddhists anyways. Of course Atheists are truly deluded since truth is they actually believe in “SOMETHING” Dogmatically I might add. So maybe Buddhists are the true Atheists and The Atheists are truly Dogmatic I’m beginning to wonder about it myself. For Atheists the something they believe in is that the external reality you see with your eyes and touch with your hands is absolutely beyond a reasonable doubt here. Again I’m wondering how Buddhists who believe in Nothing are not the real Atheists and how Atheists can still claim they believe in nothing. Now Agnostics on the other hand at least they take a balanced approach and stay skeptical about the whole thing altogether. Heck they’re not really sure about anything and leave every possibility open. Sorry Atheists but I can’t accept your dogmatic view anymore then I can accept the idea that there’s an invisible dictator in the sky who talks to the most anointed (most delusional) clergy/individuals and no one else. Advocates of The Scientific Method I’m still waiting for you to show me an experiment that proves absolutely that nothing exists beyond the material world. Intuition has already proven it exists because the one thing you can be sure of is that thoughts occur and as such you exist. Yet you can’t observe it in any way as a repeatable phenomena, you can’t gather evidence about it either you just Intuitively know beyond reasonable doubt “YOU THINK” regardless if you think hardly at all like Paris Hilton for example. However Observation alone can’t be used to prove the observable world is actually real since any observable experiment or data will always be biased by the senses. As long as no other method outside of the sense’s exists all experiments regarding the tangibility of reality or matter will end up bias. Well users of the modern Scientific Method balls in your court I’m shifting the burden of proving what you say is real and non dogmatic back on you. Give me an unbiased proof positive for reality and the absoluteness of physical matter Einstein need not apply here.

“I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws” – Albert Einstein.
In fact Albert Einstein believed in nothing also he was sure of one thing above all else the fact that nothing is truly certain. But beyond that an unknown fact about Einstein was that he admired Eastern Philosophy Buddhism and Hinduism especially. He himself would at times describe himself an Agnostic probably because he ruled nothing out. Whats more is Einstein was conscious of how his Intuition was part of his Scientific Method. To be fair it only seems reasonable to call the modern use of The Ancient Scientific Method “The Einstein Method” since the name “The Scientific Method” seems to be taken already. Utilization of The Einstein Method of Intuition and Observation is the only way to truly get back to a truly Scientific Method for discovery and problem solving. Of course when Albert Einstein’s was around no one truly paid attention to how he saw things the scientific community could only see black and white. Either you believe in an invisible man in the sky or you didn’t for them no in between existed its like your either with us or against us. As a result of how science failed to revive The Ancient Method herein referred to as The Einstein Method many failed attempts at solving social problems have been posed and tried and some not even tried yet.

Materialism solves Materialism?

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it!”. -Karl Marx

One of the first attempts to use the Observed Method to solve social problems was developed by Frederich Engels and Karl Marx. When they put forward their new doctrine they did so on the assumption the philosophy of the past only interpreted the world. They assumed this because they were ignorant of the role ancient mystics played as scientists and inventors of the ancient world. Further neither tapped into Intuitive thinking. Between the two they could only observe that no philosophy of the past was concerned with social change. Not that the idea itself didn’t exist obviously arch types representing ideas in popular consciousness such as Prometheus had already existed. The thing was these ideas existed as part of collective archetypes and social consciousness. Obviously when the Celts resisted Roman invasion their collective archetypes where all the philosophy they need to galvanize them. Or Spartacus a Thracian and not an Atheist actually an Animist that believed in a secular concept of life energy. Spartacus used the collective philosophy that already intuitively existed as the guide to lead an uprising and advocate a Democratic Society. Its amazing that Marx would have missed the most important Philosopher of all “The Collective Consciousness”. Marx’s only redeeming factor was that he at least somewhat praised The Gnostic’s. Which is good considering had The Gnostic’s actually smashed the Roman State they could have led the world in a new enlightened direction. Of course this doesn’t excuse Marx’s gravest mistake of all which is assuming the motor force of history is the need to find better ways to produce material things. Further Marx said that the history of all class society is the history of class struggles. Of course what Marx missed was the history of Caste Struggles which differ from Classes. Castes are defined by heredity they are socially immutable cannot be changed by economic activity. Classes on the other hand are defined by ones economic standing in society. In a class society you have some choice over your exploiter. In a Caste system however the social caste your born into determines for life who your exploiter will be. Its because of Marx’s Materialism that he couldn’t see this difference and further completely misses the true motor force of history. In truth the actual motor force of history is “Human Curiosity” our quest for knowledge this is our driving factor as Albert Einstein described the awe and wonder of everything around us. Perhaps philosophers before didn’t need to tell people how to change the world maybe they were free thinking enough in the ancient world to figure out how to change it for themselves. Of course after 1400 years of religious oppression who could really blame anyone for concluding that people had to be told how to change things. Marx may have meant well and many Socialists today also are well meaning people who want social justice the problem is so long as they believe in Materialism and a Monetary system real social justice can’t be achieved.

As flawed as Marxism was it was inevitable that it would give rise to another philosophy developed by Mikhail Bakunin this new idea was called “Anarchism”. Developed from the same Materialist thinking that Marxism came from the only step forward from Marxism was putting forward the need to get rid of the state. Of course Anarchism was still Materialist and Monetarist not to mention that of the two theories during that time period by comparison Marxism would have been the more stable system of the two. Considering that Anarchists never have and never will have a blue print or layout of their society will work. For example there’s no plan for economics most Anarchists advocate small scale Monetarism even though this form of small scale monetarism with local currencies already existed in the early days of Rome. They and even constitutionalist’s as well will advocate small scale monetarism while at the same time denying how Roman Equestrian and Merchants developed the Monetary System in the days of Rome to secure power for 1000’s of years. In both Marxism and Anarchism Materialism is still the key factor and immutable underpinning of society.

As the world developed even more however the modern scientific method made a new observation about the world that would underpin a new idea. Society had become a High Energy Society ie a society capable of producing more then could actually be consumed. Further because of this It was observed that there could never exist enough consumers able to consume everything produced. The continued skyrocketing of production capacity would have to some how lead to scarcity. As a result products of lower quality have to be produced in order to keep consumers spending. Like Marx the individuals who reached these conclusions believed like Marx that human beings have a natural inclination towards Materialism. Technocracy as it was called put forward something new which is the idea that money is outdated and no longer needed. Unlike Marxists who want to simply redistribute the money equally Technocrats represented the first progressive step beyond the idea of money. While Marxism represented the most progressive ideology developed in the 1800’s Technocracy represented an even more progressive step forward in the mid 1900’s. Quite frankly when compared to Marxism or Anarchism the Technocracy was an even more stable system in terms of efficiency and the freeing up of individuals from the burden of work. Technocracy also began to solve a problem inherent in Marxism. This problem is that in ending Economic Class Antagonisms new Caste Hereditary Antagonisms where created. Marxism in practice since it was tied as it was to a monetary system created various new hereditary castes. Basically whatever job you were born into is what you’d die doing for the rest of your life. Technocracy however reduced the various castes divisions of Marxism into just two. Not necessarily perfect either Technocracy at least was able to propose a new system for the equal distribution of goods and services that didn’t rely on money or banking of any sort. Technocrats were right when they said the use of Money and market economics was an outdated concept. In place of money Technocrats proposed a new system of measuring value and distribution. This new system would be based on “Energy Accounting” which would basically take an accounting of the actual productive output of all accumulated commodity production. Further a grand total would be calculated such as lets say 10000 this number would then be divided out equally to everyone. Every citizen would then receive energy certificates redeemable for whatever they needed. Of course the system of “Energy Certificates” as well as “Energy Accounting” was not necessarily the best way. Technocrats claim that Energy Certificates are simply a method of inventory control. Like Marxism Technocracy would place one section of society in bureaucratic control of society. Under Marxism its a Dictatorship of The Proletariat and Under Technocracy Scientists, Engineers, and Technicians would be the new Dictators of society. In both system Central Planning by humans in undemocratic means is the key factor. The underlying factor in all these ideologies is that The Modern Scientific Method can be used to solve social problems. This belief of course comes from Secular Humanists who tote the Modern Scientific Method (based on their deluded mystical belief in the absoluteness of reality) as the great salvation of all humanity. The belief is of course both Dogmatic and Rhetorical since there’s little difference between believing the Modern Scientific Method is the great mystical salvation of humanity and that the 2nd coming of Jesus is the great salvation of mankind. Further I believe books like “Dan Browns Angels and Demons” illustrate the point of how very similar Religion and what passes for Science these days are more similar then they are dissimilar.

Of course Technocracy itself was not the last probable solution that could be offered on the basis of The Western Pseudo-Scientific Method. The next and not so new offering comes from The Venus Project and Jacques Fresco who split with the Technocrats. It was only natural that someone would eventually conclude if they used the observed method how both the attempt to redistribute wealth (Marxism) and the attempt to bureaucratically redistribute resources (Technocracy) were both flawed attempts to achieve one underlying goal. Quite simply both systems are attempts at equal and common distribution of the earths resources. In Marxism however like Capitalism Money is the factor that limits this and under Technocracy the obvious creation of a dictatorship of The Modern Scientific Method over society is obviously flawed. The natural conclusion through observation one would reach is that humans should be taken out of the equation altogether. Rather then unelected bureaucracies (Technocracy) or cliques both elected or unelected (Socialism) that Self Aware, Artificially Intelligent, Computers, Machines, and Robotics should run everything for us. In truth this conclusion reached by Jacques Fresco is just the other extreme. I believe Jacques Fresco means well and that the Venus Project people mean well also its just they’ve gone to the other extreme in concluding people should be factored completely out of decision making altogether. In fact its not the use of technology I take issue with at all. I’m all for using technology to make human life easier and creating the sort of resource based economy where this idea is possible. Now if I were to use political labels from the current dying Aeon to label the Venus Projects Ideology I might refer to it as Anarcho-Technocracy unfortunately that label wouldn’t fit since Jacques didn’t create a system based on old ideas. Quite frankly what The Venus Project advocates should more properly be called “MECHNOCRACY” meaning Machine Bureaucracy. On the other side where The Mechnocracy the only ideology in existence it would be the most progressive of them since no other would be able to better provide for humanity and free humanity from modern day dictatorship of the work place. Quite frankly Jacques was right about one thing and that is that we need to create a “Resource Based Economy” this term and idea put forward by The Venus Project is definitely far ahead of its time. On the one hand to even be able to conclude on the basis of a Materialist Discovery Method turned towards solving social problems that society should focus less on materialism and more on commonality is quite Dharmic and a great leap forward. I mean lets face it our modern day society is so obsessed with Materialism and the hording of Material things that its not even really funny anymore. The only laughs I get about it anymore is probably when I see Britney Spears dancing around and singing her and people like her are the biggest jokes this age has ever manufactured. Quite frankly I’ll be happy when the remnants of this so called civilized society and all the garbage its spawned are on display in a museum somewhere in the future under a section label “ABSURD”. All this drivel has accomplished quite effectively one thing and one thing above all else which is cut us off from our connection to each other and our natural connection to Mother Gaia.

While its obvious that The Mechnocrat System of The Venus Project would eliminate one form of rampant materialism the fact is it would do nothing to end the underlying Materialism.. Because just like everyone else whose come before the so called Modern Scientific Method is Dogmatically clung too. Its great that the Venus Project itself is open to debate, criticism and new ideas from others in this spirit I would further encourage that the Modern Scientific Method itself be open Criticism as well. In fact we’d encourage The Venus Project to actually consider using The Einstein Method over the current Dogmatic Scientific Method. Because as it stands now while freeing up society from one form of Materialism it would create another. In his book “Looking Forward” that Jacques Fresco co Wrote with Kenneth Keyes he assumes as any Materialist would that when you free humans up from the burden of working to survive that our attention would turn to other pursuits. This part of his perspective isn’t necessarily bad rather what is deluded in his thinking is where he assumes those pursuits will include “Genetically Enhancing Humans” through cybernated systems. Jacques goes further to say that women will be relieved of the burden of child birth and that cybernated nurseries would be created to replace the natural child bearing process. I spoke with someone via e-mail from The Zeitgeist Movement (Political Arm of The Venus Project) about this recently. He replied “everything is voluntary so no one would be forced to give birth a certain way its up to them to decide.” Beyond this he Dogmatically hung on the Modern Scientific Method to biblical proportions. One point I’d raise in response to this is quite frankly what would stop a new caste system from emerging in which Super Humans become the new elite caste with Humans produced the natural way looked down upon by the rest of society. Whether or not money exists is of little consequence the point is that if you have one race of Super Genetically Engineered Humans and then a race of Humans produced the natural way your gonna have new social antagonisms regardless. Man has this person never seen the movie Gattaca? But moving beyond this regardless of what ends up being the eventual shape of The Venus Projects ideology the current Mechnocratic Version of The Resource Based Economy is not the most progressive version of a Resource Based Economy which can be put forward.

In fact if Jacques had used The Einstein method intuitively he would have insight into the fact that its material attachment to the temporary and not long lasting things which is the cause of all oppression. Like all others who came before Jacques misses the point that its Dukkha the clinging, longing, and wanting obsession with the material and temporary that cuts off people from their natural connection to the earth and each other. This Dukkha which is the Paradox of Suffering that has been the root cause of all social problems is what must be eliminated. Liberation from Dukkha will cause people to realize what there true nature is “Curiosity” and its this innate fact about us that has always driven both Intuition and Observation forward as the original Scientific Method for discovering the world around us. It was this embracing of Intuition and Observation together that allowed ancient people’s to connect with the earth as well as understand and identify with the earth herself. Its no wonder ancient people’s regarded the earth as a great mother and believed that no only was their an obvious observable connection between ourselves and mother Gaia but also that an subtle energetic connection existed as well. The thing about Intuition is that there are times when what is naturally known can’t always be observed like the example I used earlier “I Think Therefore I Am”. Just like how ancient people’s knew Intuitively that the earth itself was alive and conscious even before such a hypothesis could be proved through observation. Its only recently that a specific radio frequency has been detected in the earth herself. Whats more is that this particular frequency range vibrates that the same level of any human in deep REM Sleep. The Frequency is called Delta and when a person is in the Delta Frequency Range they can literally be on the same frequency range as the earth herself. In fact ancient mystics knew they could consciously achieve the delta state through methods of deep meditation in which they could consciously lose all physical awareness and be at the Gaia frequency range. Some may argue this doesn’t prove at least in an observable manner that the earth herself is conscious. On the other hand the observed method can’t prove we have consciousness either. Nor is it even sure of what exactly consciousness is we rely on Intuition every single one of us to know we are conscious. Beyond that nothing is truly certain when it comes to consciousness or reality if modern science would only realize this fact then it might get somewhere. Of course even though we rely on Intuition to know we are conscious this doesn’t mean we won’t ever have some sort of observable evidence that proves consciousness to exist. Until that point however a true scientist must simply accept that they are conscious and simply look inward for insights into why that is. No this isn’t like have faith either since it relies on reasonable intuitive insights where as faith is blind only requires itself and any associations it can find to prove its existence.

Unfortunately however The Mechnocratic model of a Resource Based Economy that Jacques Fresco and The Venus Project propose will simply continue Dukkha. Quite frankly the biggest mistake The Zeitgeist Movement especially makes is to throw all forms of spiritualism and Mysticism together in the same boat. No attempt is ever made to apply the Einstein Method in comparing and contrasting different perspective. Einstein himself was forward thinking enough to know there was a difference yet this notion fails to catch up with others. In fact The Venus Project claims that its goal is to bring about all the things religions promise but never deliver (ie brotherly/ sisterly love, harmony, and peace). Of course Western Religions one of the biggest culprits here but the Mechnocratic model of a Resource Based Economy offers no real solution to Materialism either. The Orthodox Abrahamic Faiths which have dominated for so long do nothing to develop the individuals consciousness. They do not encourage meditation as a method of obtaining insight or personal growth. They do nothing to cultivate the inner joy and inner happiness that exist in all of us. By that same token The Venus Project doesn’t offer any sort of guide or plan for cultivating the individual either. To their credit however at least The Venus Project actually proposes an observable method for changing the world. Now if only this idea was combined with a plan for how to cultivate individuals into the more Dharmicly conscious individuals needed to actually bring about a Resource Based Economy. In fact it would be more accurate for The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement to say that they support the material promises of religions and nothing more. Because cultivating individuals is definitely not part of their program or plan for transition from the Monetary System to a Resource Based Economy.

Further the basis of these criticisms are not on fear of technology and oh no the rise of the machines. Yeah I know we’ve all been bombarded by the same Hollywood images of evil thinking machines taking over and either enslaving or exterminating humanity. Automating production and freeing people from the burden of labor are great pursuits since they free people up to pursue knowledge. Even genetic engineering that eradicates disease is a great thing as well we have the technology right now to eradicate all disease. We even have the technology to create foods artificially and without the need to waste large plots of land raising animals. Technology is a great thing and it will be even better when The Einstein Method is utilized as the New Scientific Method. Further there’s no reason why technology shouldn’t be used to make our lives easier. However I have to draw the line when you start talking about how machines will do all the things states used to do. When you start talking about cybernated machines that monitor your intake of calories and tell you what you should eat again I have to draw the line. Further when you talk about how machines are going to handle everything for us including having kids for us this is where I draw the line. Further its obvious to anyone your response is but there’s no observable evidence to support the hypothesis that The Mechnocratic model of a Resource Based Economy would lead to anything bad. Well unlike yourself through Intuition and Foresight the by product of Intuition I can observe variables which would make the plausibility of one of two not so pleasant futures a probable reality. One Possibility is that self aware and self thinking machines capable of problem solving might simply decide that since they make all other decisions for us they should rule over us. Further since they would already be given control of everything around us the apparatus would be in place for a new type of Fascism to emerge perhaps some sort of Sentient Robotocracy. However even if this didn’t become the case the other probable future is that people would become way to dependent on machines doing everything for them that they’d grow lazy. I mean why stop at letting machines give birth for us why not make it so we never have to leave our chairs ever. Why not eventually or create surrogates to live in the real world for you of course my foresight can see this scenario as less likely still through intuition when the variables are weighed using foresight it does come about as a probability. What I see as the solution to this problem is to simply develop machines to the point where they are not self aware and still ultimately require a person to come up with solutions should problems arise. Further if machines are used to crunch all the numbers for directly democratically elected facilitators rather then computer selected teams then that is fine. The problem will always arise that if machines are allowed to become self aware and problem solve for themselves we will ultimately once again lose our connection to each other and the earth. So while we can agree 100% on the need for a “Resource Based Economy” we will disagree over the model of the Resource Based Economy. Of course this has only been a general overview of my criticisms of your Mechnocratic model I will delve further into the nitty gritty specifics in future writings specifically on The Resource Based Economy.

Beyond Materialism

Going beyond Materialism is the ideal here and the path to doing this is The Einstein Method. Now some may argue well Einstein was a Socialist and to this we’d say that during the earlier part of the previous century Marxism was the best available system to choose from. However having been a former Marxist myself and having read all the doctrines for myself I can honestly say I used to think like that at one point as well. However having been an activist and among the left for many years a realization dawned on me. Quite simply that Materialism was bogus and ever since then I’ve sought to create a new ideology and a new way of looking at things. Further the movement I write on behalf of as a whole has been developing a new idea for years quite simply as we went along being active in various movements for change. I will admit that before I heard this magic word “Resource Based Economy” we didn’t have a term for the economic side of our new Ideology. Our theory unlike Mechnocracy is based on The Einstein Method and through that method we’ve arrived at a very Non-Materialist version of The Resource Based Economy. For Directivists we see the creation of any ocracy whether it be Machine based or Human as innately flawed. Its obvious that the Monetarism that has prevailed since the days of Rome has been the underlying problem in society. What should be more obvious is that Materialism as a philosophy and point of view is no longer relevant anymore. When the best thing it can propose for society is a Mechnocracy obviously somethings wrong. Materialism has reached the end of its solo philosophical capacity to produce new philosophy. When this occurs of course the only logical and reasoned thing one can do is go back and re-asses the Modern Scientific Method itself and consider the possibility that perhaps a simple update is needed. I’m not saying we should completely throw it out as you might assume all thats being said here is that the old Dogmatic praise of The Scientific Method is no longer useful. Its time to update so that we can move forward lets once and for all reconcile what was lost 1700 years ago when the great advances achieved by ancient humans went up in flames along with the hope and dreams of all the oppressed people of the world for the next 1700 years. Its time Modern Science embraced the Intuitive side of the true Scientific Method of and embraced a more Holistic Scientific Method.

Of course this is just the first step we must inform people about The Einstein Method as an alternative to The Scientific Method. We of course invite everyone to take part in this effort to change the dominant paradigm not the least of which would be mystics who have always been pushed aside by what passes for Science in this age. This process involves new thinking which challenges you to be skeptical about everything even reality itself. This is a challenge to become skeptical about observation in general and confirm and back it up with Intuition and Foresight Using this method it will be possible for others to see other new ideas that go beyond the limits of the best Materialism can come up with.

For us Directivists we’ve always used The Einstein Method even if we didn’t have a word for that method until now. Further we see this as a turning point where the new consciousness that must take hold has the potential to set in in advance of the type of society which must ideally exist. We realize that even Directivism our proposed system is not the final act new and better systems will emerge as a result in the future. Directivism is not even the first stage before The Directivist model of a Resource Based Economy can even become possible we must go through a series of stages. First and foremost we need a period of organization, agitation, and activism this of course is the stage we are in currently. The Mechnocrats of The Zeitgeist Movement call this period the establishment of communications teams that will somehow reach a critical mass. Marxists have referred to it as a period of propagandation and agitation as stated by “Leon Trotsky in The Transitional Programme”. Anarchists still haven’t come up with a plan for how to get anything done they prefer to be spontaneous about the whole thing. Whatever one calls it however the point is that this first period is the most important of all as its the starting point for any ideology and how we go about agitation is one of the biggest factors here. The Zeitgeist Movement puts forward a complete opting out of the system as its solution in the movie Zeitgeist Addendum. For starters they call for Exposing Fiat Money for what it is this demand is a good thing however they also suggest that canceling your bank account or credit card will somehow raise awareness. Besides the fact that it maybe difficult to change banks for whatever reason such as direct deposit of Social Security or Welfare checks at times can be difficult. Many poor people don’t even have money to keep in their accounts anyways and they simply use account for direct deposit. Boycotting the news is also not going to do anything since CNN will still be on whether I watch it or not. Besides that even though alternative news is my primary source of information there are times when its good to know what sort of propaganda the enemy is telling everyone makes it easier to debate the validity of it later on. Boycotting the military is another suggestion and this one is good. Boycott energy companies again this is good as well but only feasible if your financially able. The final suggestion to boycott the political system is going a bit far. Tactically speaking one can still utilize the political system in a manner that helps to undermine the very same system. Fielding candidates at the local level that can use both the election and their office should they be elected to promote the ideas of a Resource Based Economy. Creating a Critical Mass is the ideal but if you form a political movement that has no actual platform, no structure, no democratically elected leadership, no formal membership and no plan of action for how to build the movement. Back when I was the Elected President of The San Diego City College’s Inter Club Council (Which meant I dealt with all club affairs on campus) an individual who I’m assuming is a member of The Zeitgeist Movement approached me one day to ask me how he would go about showing Zeitgeist Addendum on Campus. Basically my answer was you needed a registered club on campus to do events, and movie showings etc. Now it The Zeitgeist Movement actually had some sort of bylaws or some sort of formal organization and direction on how to build the movement perhaps some could direct members of the movement to go ahead and initiate campus based student groups on colleges all over the world. Fortunately though our movement is a bit more organized we have an internal structure, directly and democratically elected leadership, plans and tactics. Because we realize that in order to create a resource based economy its going to take formal organization of some type to make it a reality. Beyond this it almost seems as if The Zeitgeist Movement is boycotting grass roots activism in addition to everything else it says to Boycott. I’ll go into more details about this in other writings but for now I’ll sum up the entire matter by saying a Critical Mass can only be reached with formal organization. Beyond that it also helps for the theorists to actually know who all of the members of their communications team are. Otherwise with no set of tactics or plans you’ll end up with 1000’s of members doing this or that thing and no one really having any kind of direction whatsoever. At the very least the Mechnocrats could create an Artificially Intelligent computer program that can tell all the members what they should be doing, how they should organize and so on. Or as Venus Project might say that can work with them on plans of action otherwise we’ll probably keep running into people who maybe part of The Zeitgeist Movement whom it never dawned on that hey we could carry a Zeitgeist Movement banner at a protest. We The Promethean Workers Association (PWA) on the other hand always make our presence known when we attend social justice related events. This of course stems simply from being organized and having a plans of action things that are as simple as setting up a table with literature, dvd’s, t-shirts , etc to promote our movement. Further we can plan for things like carrying banners and signs at protests with our name on it by taking part in various social justice issues such as Gay Rights, Anti-Racism, Womens Rights, etc we can present the idea of a Resource Based Economy to seasoned activists who already fight for social justice. Further because we are an organized group we get literature printed that promotes the resource based economy and get it distributed where ever we can. These are all things that only an organized group with formal membership, facilitators, branches, national and international offices can get done.

For PWA we see the path to a Resource Based Economy as 4 fold. First there is the period of Agitation this period is followed by critical mass. Now during Critical Mass either the current monetary system will utterly collapse or enough of a critical mass will exist in case eminent collapse of the monetary system doesn’t happen. If enough of a critical mass exists upheaval can occur and the people can force a revolution to both end the monetary system and dismantle the state from below. Of course the other possibility is that the entire system will just collapse in on itself. Whatever way it happens though the third stage would be called the Transitional period this would be the period of transition from the old Monetary System to the new Resource Based Economy. Make no mistake though money and banking would immediately be eliminated during the transitional period that old outmoded system would not be tolerated even for one second during the transitional period. Whats important though is that during this period of transition it would be necessary to initially organize Input, Output, and Distribution Committees. These committees would be Directly and Democratically Elected and since Money is no longer a factor no need for Elected Officials to establish Budgets and Laws. Facilitators would be like teams the only difference is that they would be Democratically Elected. Further they’d only be empowered to create and develop the necessary apparatus for the development of Centers. Input Committees would eventually become Input Centers charged with collection of resources for use by Output (Manufacturing) Centers that would then send produced goods to Distribution Centers. The Democratically elected Team at each of the three centers would work to automate each phase of production as much as possible. Further to ensure that waste does not occur through over production the system of Direct Democratic Proportional voting would be used to determine what should be produced. Machines would then crunch the numbers and run the program and to make sure there was no glitches in the system facilitators would be in charge of oversight. So in effect what you’d end up with is elected Technicians, Engineers, and Scientists. Anyone anybody needed would be provided for them by Distribution Centers. During the period of transition the old infrastructure or cities would get utilized at least during this interim period. Sky scrapers once used by Bank of America or JP Morgan Chase Manhattan Bank could now house 30 story farm complexes. And the tops could house wind turbines, trees, solar panels, etc. it wouldn’t be the most efficient setup but in the interim period it would work. Eventually there would be a need to create new more efficient cities with a circular design to them for maximum efficiency that would become the new cities. As the Resource Based Economy became more and more established the old cities would be abandoned over time as new more efficient cities emerged. Old cities would be mined for resources of course we could only get to that point if we first have a detailed plan for the transitional period. The Modern Scientific Method has yet to be applied towards getting from Agitation, to Critical Mass, To Transition, To Resource Based Economy. The best the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement have done so far is Agitate gather people into a disorganized movement and offer a solution which should actually be step 4. Which raises the obvious question where in the world is step 2 and Step 3 I’ve seen The Mechnocrats put forward Step 1 and I’ve seen then put forward Step 4. Its almost as if someone built a Circular City with no power source to get the darn thing running.

What we’ve given here is only a brief summation of The Directivist Model for a Resource Based Economy. We have a more detailed Blue Print for a Resource Based Economy the first draft was called “On Directivism: Blue Print For a Dharmic Society”. The First draft for the Blue Print was developed over a 2-3 year period by the membership of The Promethean Workers Association (PWA). The Second Draft which is now available contains many revisions. At the time it was published PWA had not yet adopted the term “Resource Based Economy”the second draft which is titled “Blueprint for a Resource Based Economy (Path to a Dharmic Society)”. The second draft includes ideas suggested by our membership as well as ideas we received from the general public. We hope this won’t be the last edition of the “Blue Print for a Resource Based Economy” either. We invite everyone to take become part of our movement and contribute to the blue print project. For now ours is the only detailed blue print that describes all 4 phases in detail of creating a Resource Based Economy. Join us in our goal of creating world wide Directivism only the Directivist model of a Resource Based Economy can bring about an Enlightened (Dharmic Society). We stand at a turning point in the shadow of an old Aeon of Darkness ready to either create a New Aeon of Light or let the elites of society take us into another Aeon of Darkness. We stand at a turning point an apex of change and the choice is ours to make to make. Join us in organizing uniting and radicalizing people for a the simple idea that the resources of the earth are the common heritage of all people not ceo’s, not bankers, and certainly not artificially intelligent machines. Directivism not Mechnocracy is the answer join The Promethean Workers Association (PWA) today! United we can make our dreams of a better world reality time to rise up!

Statement of The Promethean Workers Association (PWA)

Spirituality, Technology, and Sustainability

Spirituality, Technology, and Sustainability
(Open Response to The Zeitgeist Movement)

What follows here is a response to three of the six understandings of The Zeitgeist Movement as they appeared on November 28th of 2009. Our purpose here is to facilitate an open dialogue, discussion, and reach an understanding of sorts on the three topics choosen. We are not against the idea of a Resource Based Economy by any means. We find the development of this form of Natural Resource Economics to be quite a progressive step forward however as with an economic system there’s more then one way to apply it. Further we’d note that not all followers of The Zeitgeist Movement adhere to “The Party Line” in regards to these three topics. Further we will show how its not necessary either to Dogmatically hold up The Modern Scientific Method as infallible gospel. In fact as we point out in “A Science of Intuition by Sidney Martinez” the Modern Scientific Method and Ancient Scientific Method are two different things. We will of course delve into these things in detail through the course of the following polemical work. We will quote the original text and respond to each point made with our analysis.


{Spirituality has a different meaning to each of us, it seems. A standard definition would be: “A sense of meaning and purpose; a sense of self and of a relationship with ‘that which is greater than self”.}

It would actually be more accurate to say Spiritualism is a sense of “Ultimate Reality” and a persons place or relationship in that sort of ultimate reality. To pigeon hole all spiritualism as “that which is greater then self” is to imply that all Spiritual systems have a divine conception similar to that of Orthodox Judeo-Christian Religions. To those belief systems they see the Divine as something separate from the self or the individual. To them God is a separate consciousness and masculine patriarch sitting on a throne and judging all of our actions. However for Gnostic’s, Buddhists, Hindu’s, Shinto’s, and most Shamanic and Natural belief systems there is no such thing as “that which is greater then self”. The Self and Greater Self are not regarded as two separate or distinct things but rather one unified whole. So in conclusion your opening assertion is a quite fallacious broad generalization.

{Currently, Religion and Mysticism seem to have the monopoly on Spirituality. Theistic religion often regards a ‘relationship with god’ or divine creator, as a spiritual relationship, while Mystics will often find a relationship to a ‘supernatural’ force or power.}

Again we see a broad sweeping generalization which seems to be born of ignorance of what Natural Religions, Spiritualists, and Animists actually believe. While it is true that Orthodox-Abrahamic and all Literalistic based Religions promote a relationship with The Demi-Urge as something spiritual. Fact is mystics don’t seek a relationship with anything that exists outside of themselves or beyond themselves. In fact mystics will generally look for a God or Goddesses inside themselves and only use those terms externally as a name for a particular process. Heck modern astronomers do it to how many stars do you think are named after someone’s significant other or perhaps another loved one? This supernatural force or power of which you speak is really just subtle energy produced by the bodies varied emotional states. We know emotions effect us in both positive or negative ways and we know those same emotions effect people around us, animals, plants, and even water. This subtle energy of course is caused by certain unseen chemicals and particles that the intuitive mind knows are there. Yet the intuitive mind can’t see them physically so they are given the label of Subtle Energy. The problem is mainstream science has yet to bring these unseen particles into the realm of the observable so its written off as a bunch of Pseudo-Science. One fact we can both agree on for sure is that we only perceive a fraction of what actually exists in the universe with our eye’s the rest can’t be physically observed yet. Of course mystics are just trying to explain through Scientific Intuition what takes up the rest of the universe we can’t see observably and can’t test with The Modern Scientific Method.

{The bottom line is that, almost universally, spirituality has to do with a ‘relationship’ on one level or another. In most perspectives, it is associated with a person’s ‘place’ or ‘meaning’ in life… whatever that may be.}

No in only a very few perspectives which only account for about less then 30% of the religions that actually exist or have existed in the world is this relationship with an external divinity or force the standard of dogma. In Gnostic notions the focus tends to be on unifying one’s consciousness with their higher self, that self that has been separated from them by society’s material notions. In fact the general view is that the spiritual world exists inside of every individual at deeper levels then the physical world. Some even see it as a cosmic Word or Logos which is like a vibration or sound that originated with the big bang and continues to vibrant and animate all matter across the entire universe. Not so mystical when one speaks of what was the first sound in the universe and would it even have been audible?

{As subjective as these things can be, we begin to recognize changes in these notions, for social progress tends to carve a path for understandings that stand the test of time. In the modern age, we have the ability to look far in our past and examine what our ancestors used to consider ‘real’, and then compare those ideas to what we understand today. Many “spiritual practices” which have existed in the past, no longer exist due the understandings that have come about in regard to natural phenomenon.}

First off many “spiritual practices” which have existed in the past were wiped out by religion. Anyone who didn’t practice the spiritual practices deemed holy by the church was burned at the stake. However many should be curious what these spiritual practices, that are no longer relevant your referring too are. Meditation and variations of it such as Tai-Chi, Yoga, and Qi Gong all have been making a come back. It has been proven that people who use these methods attain better focus, health, clearer minds, negative emotions are also expelled. In fact the people who developed these things all knew one cold hard fact, which is that if you want to change the world you must start by teaching individuals to improve themselves. Other practices of the ancient spiritualists included the development of a theory of gravity in India 2000 years earlier then Sir Isaac Newton. An ancient Egyptian Steam Engine used to open temple doors, ancient batteries such as the Baghdad Battery, Sanitation, Medicine, Automatons, Accurate Clocks, and various other primitive spiritual practices as you call them. A fact you can’t deny is that all these things were invented by the so-called spiritual practices you keep trying to write off and pigeon hole as primitive. Further they had both an Intuitive and Material understanding of Observable and Unobservable Natural phenomenon. Unlike you they could see it from both sides and not based on some Dogmatic Materialist Scientific Method. Quite frankly the Ancient Scientific Method was much more advanced then the Modern Scientific Method you tout as the great salvation of all mankind. Whats more is this view point of labeling the ancient societies backwards and primitive well that notion was cooked up by the church. It was used as social propaganda on the people so they wouldn’t know that people used to have sanitation, or any sort of technology which made their lives better. They wanted the people of Dark Ages and Middle Ages to think things had been worse before the church and religious domination. These notions your expanding about ancient societies quite frankly are just a rehashing of dark ages church propaganda. Quite odd for a movement that believes religion produces nothing but false hope and social propaganda.

{As a base example, early religions often ‘sacrificed’ animals for certain purposes… this rarely happens today, as the relevance of such an act has proven pointless in its desired effect. Likewise, rarely do people perform ‘rain dances’ in order to influence the weather… today we understand how weather patterns are created, and ritual practices have no provable effect.}

For your information the religions that sacrificed animals tended to be semitic. Native Americans on the other hand usually thanked the earth for providing them the animal and thanked the animals spirit for giving them nourishment. While you may sit there and say this is bogus outdated spiritualism truth is they were simply embracing and being thankful every day to life, to the earth, and to each other for what they had. This is something any society which treasurers the resources of the earth as our common heritage would do. As for the animal sacrifices themselves those actually stopped because the ruling priestly caste of the Hyksos no longer found it to be a useful social control mechanism.

As for “Rain Dances” they were more of a festival and celebration native people’s held as a way of keeping up good morale during droughts. A way of saying gosh darn remember when it used to rain? Sometimes it rained afterwards and sometimes it didn’t and when it didn’t everyone understood that it just wasn’t meant to happen. Its obvious your completely ignorant of Native American culture and have no clue of native practices and rituals and what they mean. This interpretation of what a Rain Dance is seems to be coming from Hollywood and not any Native American elders you’ve actually gone and spoken too at the reservation. Further have you proven beyond a reasonable doubt that ritual practices have no effect? How many experiments have you run on the subject? How many rituals and subjects taking part in ritual did you study? Where’s the data proving this assertion? If your going to tout The Modern Scientific Method so highly why not use it to prove your assertions? we’re not saying Rain Dances can change the weather here what’s being said is you can’t make such a claim as Rain Dances have no effect until you can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

{Similarly, the idea of ‘praying’ to a god for a particular request, has also statistically proven to have little effect on an outcome,}

How is praying to a god the same as a ritual/ celebration?

{not to mention the evidence to support a personified creator doesn’t exist in any scientific way…rather it is often derived from ancient historical literary speculation and tradition.}

Well the idea of a personified creator is only as old as the church and it developed out of a literalistic view of scripture. Ancient Gods and Goddesses were Effigies related to Astronomical bodies and the stories associated with each were stories of people who may have existed at one point. Those actual people were thought to have the traits of the particular Gods or Goddesses they were associated with. The Avatars were just people who did things that inspired stories. So in fact the ancient historical literary speculation and tradition you speak of is again another assertion that ancient societies were more backwards then dark age societies.

{Establishment Religion, in many ways, seems to be rooted in a perceptual misunderstanding about life’s processes. For instance, it presents a world view which often puts the human on a different level than other elements of nature. This ‘spiritual ego’ has led to dramatic conflicts for generations, not only between human beings, but inadvertently between us and the environment itself.}

Again this statement seems to pigeon hole all spiritualism together into the same boat. Just one of the many hasty generalizations to be found throughout The Zeitgeist Movements what should be labeled “Misunderstandings” rather then Understandings. An understanding is usually what takes place when a person has thoroughly researched a topic and has studied it. So far there doesn’t seem to be any actual understanding of spirituality just a bunch of fallacious logic.

Also to reiterate the point not all spiritualism has created conflicts between us and the environment itself. If you were talking about Literalistic-Based-Abrahamic-Faiths then your claim would be accurate, however since your making no distinctions here the statement is incorrect. Further it begs the question of how has Buddhism, Shinto, Shamanism, Hinduism, Wicca, Taoism, etc. caused conflict between us and the environment itself?

{However, as time has moved forward, Science has shown how human beings are subject to the exact same forces of nature as everything else. We have learned that we all share the same atomic substructure as trees, birds and all other forms of life.}

Atoms were first discovered by The Greeks a bunch of mystics and pagans who had knowledge of mechanical engineering. So a more accurate statement then what you made would be that a bunch of Dogmatic tooters of The Modern Scientific rediscovered Atoms. In fact who knows just how far along The Greeks were in their studies of Atomic Structures, most of the knowledge of the ancient world was burned at the library of Alexandria. Yet what has survived of the ancient knowledge tells us that many of the Pagan societies of the past believe we shared the same energy as all other forms of life. Now you may call that mystic but fact is Atom’s are energetic hence (E=MC2) meaning everything is made up of energy. So anyone in the ancient world could conclude that we are all made up of the same universal force or energy. Because this mystical force as you called it earlier just means energy a force is like a current and energy is a current.

{We have learned that we cannot live without nature’s elements… we need clean air to breathe, food to eat, energy from the sun, etc. When we understand this Symbiotic relationship of life, we begin to see that as far as ‘relationships’ are concerned, our relationship to the planet is the most profound and important.}

So when did we learn this exactly according to you? It would seem your implying we didn’t learn this till the 1900’s. Pagan societies, Native American societies, and all Natural Religions around the world learned these facts about 10,000 – 8,000 years ago. In the west those facts were suppressed by the Literalistic Church so that Merchant Corpus’s (Corporations) and Equestrian Consortium’s (Banks) could keep the common people ignorant while they generated great amounts of capital. This is why Gnostic Christians, and Pagans were slaughtered by the early Literalistic Christians. So the Literalists could become the dominating faction of Christianity and create the church according to their patriarchal ambitions.

{The medium by which this is expressed, is Science, for the Scientific Method has allowed us insight into these natural processes, so we can better understand how we ‘fit’ into this life system as a whole.
This could be called a ‘spiritual’ awakening.}

Long before The Modern Scientific Method came around there was an Ancient Scientific Method used by Ancient Scientists whom you call “Mystics”. The Modern Scientific Method your Dogmatically pushing should more accurately be called The Observed Method since it relies solely on what can be seen. It was created on the assumption that the physical/ observable world is all that exists and nothing beyond it can exist. Yet what were finding more and more in Quantum Physics is that things beyond the physical and observable world do in fact exist. Right now you’d be on a very slippery slope saying that Physical Matter is all that exists and nothing can exist beyond it. Which if you do believe that we challenge you to create an experiment proving that the physical world beyond a reasonable doubt is all that exists. After all if your going to tout this observed method as absolute your going to need to develop an experiment to first prove the physical world, in which your conducting your experiments is actually here. Further your going to need to prove that the data developed from these experiments isn’t going to be biased by the eyes or the brain that interprets what the eyes are seeing. In fact any data you generate is already technically in the past there is no such thing as a “Real Time” experiment. Quite frankly how you can call this any sort of awakening is absurd a true awakening is reaching the skeptical viewpoint that nothing is absolute. In fact not even the physical world should be taken as absolute. After all a true skeptical scientist knows physical matter is not to be regarded in an absolute sense. A skeptical person maybe spiritual or maybe simply like Albert Einstein and regard the question of god as too complicated of a question for the human mind to ever fathom or comprehend. Of course this would mean that no book written by any human can ever answer those questions at best all they can do is offer different views on the subject. No one book or philosophy should ever be taken as absolute or the answer all book or notion including Scientific Materialism should be taken absolutely.

Albert Einstein himself was very fond of Eastern Mysticism such as Buddhism and Hinduism its obvious Einstein used the Ancient Scientific Method to make the discoveries he did. His method was both Intuition and Observation on the side of Intuition his proofing worked with Experienced Phenomenon, Understanding, Rationalization, and Conclusion and from that he worked at the Observable Level; which you call The Scientific Method. Fact is The Modern Scientific Method would be more complete and better equipped to solve social problems if it embraced Intuition as part of itself. To this end the truly Scientific Method would be “The Einstein Method” the perfect marriage of Intuition and Observation.

{This realization, which has been proven by science, is that humans are no different from any other form of nature, while our integrity is only as good as the integrity of our environment, to which we are a part. This understanding presents an entirely different ‘spiritual’ world view, for it forces the idea of interdependence and connection, at its core.}

This realization was also the reality of ancient cultures. Its just that as monetarism became the new dominating factor the old Spiritualism was phased out.

{The interconnection of the whole of life is undeniable in the most basic sense, and it is this perpetual ‘relationship’ of total interconnectivity that is not fully realized by society overall. Thus, our modes of conduct and perception are largely out of line with nature itself… and hence destructive.
Nature itself is our teacher, and our social institutions and philosophies should be derived from this foundational and, invariably, ‘spiritual’ understanding.
The faster this spiritual awakening spreads, the more sane, peaceful and productive society will become.}

What you speak of is not a spiritual awakening but a dominance of your dogmatic view overtaking everything else. It is true that everything is interconnected but every single assertion you’ve made throughout your so called understanding of Spiritualism was spawned by ignorance of spiritualism. Why don’t you actually speak to experts on these other viewpoints before you go around creating such obvious Straw men, Hasty Generalizations, and Pigeon Holes.

Technology and Sustainability

In this section we’re going to focus on the most blatant Mis Understandings as well as some points of agreement. Mainly because this document is getting much longer then was intended. So to keep it simple we’re going to selectively take text and respond to it. Anyone who gets a copy of this in booklet form is welcomed to go read for themselves the complete text itself mainly so nothing is taken out context. You can of course find it on Zeitgeist Movement’s homepage under Understandings. If that section is updated for whatever reason and specific lines changed we’ll keep an on line archive of it as it appeared on November 28th 2009 at and now on to the business of analysis.

{As time has moved forward, human beings have become more and more aware of nature, its processes, and thus have been able to derive inference about how to imitate nature in all its creative glory.
The result has been Technology, which is what separates us humans from the other species as far as functionality.}

On the one hand this seems obvious but here’s a question few consider. Some maybe familiar with experiments which allow wireless communications between a persons mind and a computer. Now tell me what aspect of nature is that mirroring exactly? Perhaps something the brain can already naturally do on its own? I suppose more study would be required to determine that beyond a reasonable doubt one way or the other. Either way it until its studied it would be illogical to draw absolute conclusions on the subject one way or the other.

{At the beginning of the Industrial Age, a great majority of people worked in factories. Today, automation comprises 90% of nearly all factories. This has displaced humans and created a large, artificial “service” industry in order to keep humans in employment for money.}

Absolutely true in fact money is in truth beginning to hold back scientific advances and development. Only the centralization of the ability to produce currency and the centralization of the ownership of debt built on the creation of money has been able to keep things moving forward. In East Asia for example the need to centralize debt and money in to the hands of fewer banking entities has created a surge of productivity. In the West the manufacturing base has all but disappeared and War seems to be the only thing able to stimulate economic growth.

{This pattern is very revealing. The implication is that machine automation is constantly challenging the role of general human labor. This doesn’t mean that humans will have “nothing to do” as time moves on. Quite the contrary… this implication denotes the freeing of humanity from jobs which humans do not care to engage in, so they will have time to pursue what they choose to.}

Again this is also true technology has the capacity to free us from the dictatorship that are workplaces.

{if human beings were not “required” to do something, they would just sit around, be lazy, and do nothing. This is absurd propaganda.

The notion of “leisure” is a monetary invention, created because of the oppressive, fascist basis of the employment institution itself. Laziness is, in fact, a form of rejection of the system.}

Once again we are on the same page here productivity does not need to be synonymous with being a wage slave. One can be just as productive painting, or creating philosophy just because a persons labor does not generate excess exploitable value i.e. profits doesn’t make them unproductive.

{In a true society, there would be no such thing as the separation of “work and “leisure”, for humans should be allowed to pursue whatever they feel is relevant.}

Which goes to that old saying of doing what you enjoy doing. If you enjoy your job then its not really work now is it? In an ideal society everyone could have a chance to learn advanced sciences. Not just in a boring lecture with books and memorization either. The world would be the classroom and everyone could learn on the job as an apprentice to whatever it is they liked. Practical learning through application coupled with centers of Socratic Learning where critical thought and analysis is how students learn.

{To put it a different way, consider the curiosity and interest of a child. He or she doesn’t even know what money is…Do they need to be motivated by money to go out and explore/create? No. They have a personal interest and they pursue it without reward.}

Exactly this underlines the most basic point of all which is “The Motor Force of History is Curiosity” or simply put the pursuit of knowledge drives human society forward. Which means humans are not driven to develop because of the need to produce more material things but rather because they are curious and want more time to nurture that curiosity. Productive forces are only developed to get the basic needs out of the way and create more time to explore and create. The Ideal society nurtures curiosity and creativity and develops the individual into a more enlightened person through natural means such as Meditation rather then through genetic manipulation or something equally unnatural. Of course this isn’t to say genetic engineering shouldn’t be used to eradicate disease, rather whats being said is that technology goes to far when it tries to make test tube babes that are superior to humans made the natural way. Further it would be going too far to create cybernated nurseries as Jacques Fresco has suggested in his book “Looking Forward” . Even though no one would be forced to give up reproducing the natural way you’d still have a new caste system of Meta Humans at the top and Natural Born Humans as second class citizens. Such a system would have a new social division not based on the divisions of the past which were monetary or hereditary based. It would now be on the basis of genetic coding and who has superior code genetic discrimination would tear the society apart.

{In fact, the greatest contributors to our society, such as Einstein, Newton or Galileo, pursued what they did without any regard to money. They did it because they wanted to. The act of doing and contributing was their reward.}

Its funny you should mention Einstein and Newton especially since both of them had what you might call mystical leanings. Albert Einstein we discussed earlier in this document, so we’ll just talk about Sir Isaac Newton. Newton was an Alchemist, which is basically a Scientist who uses The Ancient Scientific Method aka Einstein Method. Both him and Einstein made the contributions they did because they were skeptical of the material world and saw no reason to be attached to Materialist Conceptions such as Money, which is the most vulgar of all Materialist notions. Of course The Modern Scientific Method as you Dogmatically apply it is another form of Materialism its just not as vulgar as Monetarism is.

{if one steps back far enough, it becomes clear that Technological development is the most important institution we have and the pursuit of socially helpful technology(not weapons) should be the highest priority of the culture.}

Of course Technological development goes all the way back to The Greeks and Chinese. As far as weapons are concerned many of them were never intended to be used as such. The first weapons axes were used to gather fire wood to keep warm, it was quickly discovered that those same tools could be used in hunting and self defense. Spears was another weapon developed and used by early humans to hunt just like the bow and arrow. Each one of these was a tool at first and then later a weapon. Even swords could be used to hunt even if thats not the reason for their development. Its only in the hands of those with power that they become weapons of warfare. Even the Chinese who invented gun powder didn’t create it as a weapon at first.

Guns which were developed as weapons, yet Guns can also be used for hunting which means they could have just easily been developed for hunting. Again we see that not all weapons are simply weapons some are also tools. Now cannons we can obviously agree that such a weapon has no practical or socially beneficial use value. You can’t even argue that a cannon is for self defense its nothing but a weapon of war same thing as Nuclear Arms again these have no social use value unless converted into power plants. In the future laser guns could still have use value even though in the wrong hands they could be weapons of war. In the right hands they would make excavations, quarrying, and many other jobs all that much easier.

{what the public fails to understand is that science is not just a tool… it is a near universal functionality which can be applied to society in ways many would not think about.}

Here’s a perfect example of where you get Dogmatic with The Modern Scientific Method. If Dogma like this is going to be the basis of your movement how can you ever expect to create an ideal society. Its almost as if your trying to create a Scientific Materialist Theocracy.

{It seems obvious that technology improves our lives and serves as the greatest liberator of human life in the material realm… so why aren’t its methods applied to society as a whole?}

Well Scientific Materialism is not the basis of society as a whole at the moment Religious Materialist still control many aspects of society. So at the moment it seems Religious Materialists control the past and Scientific Materialists are striving to control the future. I’m sure a good religious slogan for your new Dogma of Scientific Materialism could be something like “Science Be Praised!” or “Praise Almighty Science!” or even “Science is great!”. All of those could be useful in building a religion around Scientific Materialism.

{Obviously, the scientific method is used constantly for isolated systems, but it has never been truly considered in the broadest ways. This is largely due to age old superstitions which battle the logic of science in favor of a dogmatic, outdated and highly romanticized world view.}

Likewise The Einstein Method aka Ancient Scientific Method has never been considered in the broadest ways either. This is largely due to 2000 year old Religious Materialism and 200 year old Scientific Materialism both are of course forms of Materialist philosophy and notions.

{Obviously, we cannot build a society from scratch but the point is clear. It is time we stop thinking about monetary concerns and limitations, and begin to think about the possibilities we have here on earth in the broadest sense.

It is this interest that has created the concept of a ‘Resource Based Economy’.}

No we cannot build a new society from scratch we must utilize the resources we have. Again it is true that we must move beyond monetary concerns and limitations. However what your claiming here is that Resource Based Economics emerged from Scientific Materialism and that it is attached to Scientific Materialism at the hip. The fact of the matter is that Resource Based Economics is an extension or school of Natural Resource Economics. Nowhere do you mention that its derived from Natural Resource Economics you claim Jacques Fresco invented it out of thin air one day. Which is really on par with the fact that Al Gore invented the Internet both claims are equally absurd.

{The Venus project has been working on this concept for a long time and its foundation is very simple.}

Yes they have been however The Resource Based Economy itself is only one component of the ideology of The Venus Project.
{We survey, preserve and maximize our use of planetary resources in conjunction with open information and technological development.}
Which on the surface is good its just the technological part that your not fully explaining. Sure machines can crunch numbers for us on resources and monitor them as well. However they don’t need to be artificially intelligent or left to make complex decisions regarding resources. Rather their should always be humans involved in decision making regarding the resources not a cybernated mechanical bureaucracy.
{In this view, little is left to subjective interpretation, for it is a scientifically derived strategy for social construction at the very core.}
It would be more accurate to say that yours which is Venus Projects interpretation of it is based on Scientific Materialism. What The Venus Project ends up with is a model for a Resource Based Economy that has been merged with a Mechnocracy. A system in which everyone is eventually submitted to a Cybernated Bureaucracy. Sure states that are human run would disappear but in their place your talking about creating self aware machines that learn and adapt to take their place. Further your saying these machines will be in charge of selecting teams to maintain and repair them. First off who in the world elected the Cybernated Bureaucracy as Dictators for life? Its not machines were against here its Artificial Intelligence thats the problem. We don’t need machines to think for us or make decisions for us I don’t care if they count calories for me, or crunch any other numbers for us as a society. But its a very slippery slope to say that governments won’t be needed when in truth your creating a new type of government a MECHNOCRACY. The Resource Based Economy itself is a great idea the native Americans had this type of Natural Resource Economy and many other tribal and ancient societies had variations of Natural Resource Economies. The Sioux people’s had a Confederated System meshed with a Resource Based Economic system. The Ancient Jomon people’s of Japan had a Resource Based Economy that was meshed with a Mageocracy or enlightened rule by a council of mystics. Both were systems based on Management and distribution of resources as common heritage of the people. Of course Marxists would try to claim those societies as ancient Communism but none of them were Monetary based. They did require a system of trade and exchange within the Confederation or Mageocracy’s region. Nowadays however machines can of course crunch numbers for us and things can be automatically exchanged for other things in other regions. Its fine to automate the trade aspects required to run a Resource Based Economy. The problem however is total Cybernation of the state aka your Cybernated Mechnocracy only differs from Technocracy in the sense that Cybernated Systems are put in place of The Human Bureaucracy existing in a Technocracy. It seems when Mr. Fresco had his schism with The Technocrats he completely flew to the other extreme of Technocracy and declared Mechnocracy as his alternative. Quite frankly The Venus Project should call their system what it really is MECHNOCRACY!
Fortunately we don’t go to the extremes The Venus Project goes to. Our Resource Based Economy is not meshed with Mechnocracy. Our’s is based upon a Direct Proportional Democracy and not like this false 2 party system we have in America or the Bourgeois Parliamentary Democracy of Europe. Rather ours is quite simply based on the model of a Consumer Cooperative. The economy itself is broken into 3 facets; Resource Management, Manufacturing, and Distribution I’m sure we can both agree these are the three aspects of any economy. In the Venus Project model of course some how Resource Management Centers, Manufacturing Centers, and Distribution Centers emerge. Some how of course being the key word and cybernation would randomly select people to maintain and repair the machinery at each center. Ok that part is clear but there’s no exact plan of transition we on the other hand have one. First off the people should elect Technical Teams to setup each of the 3 centers. A Resource Management Team to go out and audit resources and figure out what sort of machinery needs to be created, a Manufacturing team to setup manufacturing centers, and a Distribution team to figure out how to get resources distributed. The reason is that if these centers are built on the basis of people and real Democratic principles, this would effectively keep a Cybernated Bureaucracy from emerging. A Cybernated Bureaucracy would further develop an absolute Carceral State.
Of course always having people in charge of the machines to fall back on would be important in case for whatever reason power grids go down or technology fails. Or heck even some sort of terrorist decides to launch an EMP attack on your cybernated systems. I mean lets face it at first there is going to be many people who won’t like the change and will resort to individual acts of terrorism. Its bound to happen when society is first transitioning and self defense militia units will need to be there to provide security for the community. Of course never should we yield unchecked defensive powers to a central authority whether it be a Cybernated one or a human one. Whats more is that if the system itself is backed by trained, elected, technical experts you have something you can always fall back on no matter what happens. Nothing we can build even at 100% efficiency is going to be indestructible because no mass of constance lasts forever it all eventually becomes energy once again. Degradation is a natural part of all things that have form in the physical universe. Direct Proportional Democracy comes into play because its the best and most effective way to control production. We should never fully Cybernate systems because then we have machines making decisions for us. We should also never take the power to elect our Technical Experts out of the hands of people because then you’ve effectively made Machines the cybernated dictators of a new Carceral Orwellian State.
So in conclusion yes we need a Resource Based Economy but not The Mechnocratic one The Venus Project proposes. What we need is The Directivist Model of a Resource Based Economy as put forward by The Promethean Workers Association (PWA). We empower people for a New Age of Aquarius away from the old Piscean Age based on Religious and Scientific Materialist Dogma’s which have led the people of this current aeon astray. Further we intend to resist vehemently and militantly any form of Religious or Scientific Materialism which tries to take hold of society by whatever means necessary to do so. Right now it is Religious Materialists who still hold society hostage but if it ever shifts to Scientific Materialists we intend to resist equally as vehemently. Further its not that we are against change either we want to end the monetary system as well we just don’t want a Mechnocracy is all.
{When we think of sustainability, often we think of durability, longevity and environmental respect. In general, a sustainable practice is a practice that takes the health of the future into consideration. However, this idea isn’t just reserved for the physical, material world- it also applies to thought, belief, human conduct and society as a whole.}

I think this is probably the one and only place anyone’s ever going to hear you admit there’s something beyond the physical and material world.
{An unsustainable practice is one that has an unbalanced negative effect, which, through time, will adversely effect a person, society and/or the environment.}

Sorta like Scientific Materialism it has a long term negative effect in that It makes consciousness enslaved too an absolutist view of physicality. Scientific Materialism is just another poisonous dogma being spoon fed to the populous.

{Any practice that causes an irreversible resource depletion or long term environmental pollution is an unsustainable practice.}

Of course but also Scientific Materialism causes long term damage to consciousness and by its very practice and application is an unsustainable practice as well.
{Given our current system of profit, most everything that is produced is done so with a built in weakness, due to the need to compete for market share.}

Of course I have a radio from the 80’s basic cassette deck type system and compared to a new electronic 3 disc CD changer well lets just say my radio from the 80’s with its single tape deck has lasted much longer. We can produce efficiency yet we don’t and this is alarming indeed.

{This is, of course, unsustainable by definition, for the inherent inefficiency of the economic system eventually creates unnecessary multiplicities, waste and pollution.}
Of course and on these points and others like it we are in total agreement with you.

{And this leads us to unsustainable ideologies.}

What about Unsustainable and unbalanced dogma’s such as Scientific Materialism and Religious Materialism which create people ignorant of higher forms of consciousness within themselves?

{In a Profit System, there is no reward for sustainability, for the system is built upon competition and regeneration. In such a circumstance, sustainability is always second to profit, for the survival of a company is based on profit, and profit is partly based on reducing costs and expanding income.}

In fact at one point it was impossible to create profits through production of domestic goods because there was not enough consumers to purchase those products. This happened once upon a time when Rome’s domestic technologies had reached a level that was pre-industrial something close to the 1600’s or 1500’s level of technology. Of course there was just one problem, most labor was carried out by slaves who produced far more then there was consumers to buy or use the services. More and more aspects of Roman services were becoming privatized and privately owned by Roman Merchant Corpus or Corporations. In the Roman 2 party political system both political parties The Populares and The Optimates worked together to pass laws to benefits the bankers and corporations. Very similar to how nowadays Democrats and Republicans in America do the same thing. Fact was early corporations saw more profit in using religion to outlaw domestic technology label it heretical and then focus all their efforts towards developing weapons. During the Dark Ages domestic technologies fell backwards by centuries while weapons for warfare continued developing to the level of guns and cannons. History has shown this scenario in play before and since we know history repeats itself we know for a fact domestic technology will once again start sinking while all efforts are diverted and focused towards military development. Now all thats missing is a new type of Fascism to rear its ugly head.

{In theory, most would agree that having an abundance of resources, along with products that are made of the most endurable materials for maximum sustainability and efficiency, is a good thing. However, these notions are not rewarded in our current world monetary system. What is rewarded is Scarcity. Scarcity and planned obsolescence are rewarded in the short term, for it creates a ‘turnover’ of profit, while also making more jobs. Sadly, this ‘short term reward’ is at the cost of ‘long term destruction’.}

Of course such is the nature of the monetary and profit systems again we agree 100% with this point as well.

{So then, what is an sustainable ideology?
While this question will always bring new answers as human evolution continues, in the present day we have a concept called The Scientific Method.}

You mean Scientific Materialism because this method is only Scientific in terms of Materialism its not scientific on any other level beyond that. It can’t even be used to prove the Material world is absolutely here beyond a reasonable doubt.

{Very simply, the Scientific Method is a process of investigation }

Perhaps you could try rewording that as Investigative Materialism?

{An example would be a problem with a car. If your car doesn’t start, you would begin a train of thought, based on logic,}

Here’s where you really get absurd actually your intuition would kick in because your first experiencing phenomenon. So you’d experience the phenomenon, rationalize it, Understand it, then reach a conclusion something like “gosh I better check under my hood” then you’d apply the observable method. The way you were explaining it just now skipped completely over the intuitive process perhaps you didn’t consciously realize the Einstein Method would assist you better in the car situation.

{A quick glance at the modes of operation used in the world today reflect a gross negligence of reason, logic and scientific application.}

True right up until you said Scientific application you should have said what you really meant to say with is Scientific Materialism as applied dogma and mass opium.

{Therefore, we need to begin an approach which maximizes education, technology and resource management.

Until this is done, sustainability will be in jeopardy.}

Yes and the sort of education we need is one that teaches individuals to master themselves and their minds. One that teaches people how to find insights within themselves that allow them to be open to other alternative systems then the Economic Materialism characteristic of all monetary based economies. In closing we agree on economic principles but it is ideologies and Scientific Materialism we disagree on. Only an ideology with a more Secular Metaphysical Agnostic and Skeptical Approach can ever be a progressive ideology. An ideology based on Scientific Materialist Absolutism which pigeon holes all Spiritualism in an ignorant manner is going to nowhere fast. If it does however it will create a new type of ignorance in society and impose through social psychological means Scientific Materialism as the new Dogmatic bible. In your movement it seems everything is up for discussion and review except what you call The Scientific Method. If your movement was based on a Resource Based Economy coupled with true Democracy not Cybernated Bureaucracy and The Einstein Method over your Scientific Method well then it would make sense. In closing we do look eagerly forward to your reply.

-Promethean Workers Association (PWA)

New Technology from Volkswagen

Jacque Fresco with The Venus Project has a lot of visions about the future. Pollution free cars that run themselves, takes themselves to service and that can change color and interior design to your pleasing. Volkswagen has gotten quite far in their research. They have a video on the following link, suggesting all of this, in the year 2028. Of course, they are promoting themselves as a brand, but still, in the video the boy says “So what did you do with the car when you didn’t drive it?”, whereby the father answers “It was just parked”. Just before, their portable holographic interactive data terminal had just reminded them that they wanted to be picked up at 3pm, and says “please select the car you want to be picked up with”.

Does VW have a secret resource-based economy wish…? These lines imply that when they don’t use the car, someone else will use it. Since they can select between several cars, that also implies that the car is not theirs per se, but rather society’s. They do have total access to cars, though. I think RBE can have a breakthrough in the world eventually. This way we can all have fun developing cars and technology to the best for everyone. Unfortunately, VW has taken down the film now, but here’s the link it was on.