PaoloSmythe

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/...d=19&Itemid=54

I watched Zeitgeist:addendum last night. Aside from it signing up with the hippies behind 'The Venus Project' towards the end of the film, it was bloody good!

zeitgeistmovie.com

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

snaplok

The NWO being a tendency not a group makes sense. Given that there are those that are always discontent with the current situations that the planet seems to be in.

In the American Revolution, the starters of the "New World Order" we deemed patriots, the founding fathers. In as much to say, I'm pretty sure that the King considered them terrorists by sheer definition.

Currently anyone who stands against a government is a dissident. In places like China, Iran and North Korea someone would be put into reeducation camps or disapear completely, thereby prempting a possible threat of a New World Order. Ethical? Maybe. But it's usually the person with the bigger gun who dictates ethics and personal resposibility. Enviornment would only steer a tendacy. It's up to the individual to come to a personal belief system of what is right and wrong and there will always be others around that person to agree or disagree; in the case of religion tell the person they have free choice but if they choose wrong they will burn for eternity. Momentary punishment or eternal damnation.

Ethics is a word used to justify what you might want it to. It IS ethical to torture prisoners because it WILL save lives. It IS ethical for us to lie the shareholders that we are making profits becasue it WILL make the company look good and keep us our jobs. It IS ethical for me to tell my girlfriend that she does not look fat in those pants because it WILL keep me getting laid. It IS NOT ethical to use animals for cancer research, but it IS ethical if you use prisoners; they're just lower forms of life anyway. It IS ethical for us to pay corporations bailout money to keep them in business because it WILL keep jobs, even though we will have to raise everyone's taxes to pay it back. But shhhh don't let anyone know, cause then it would be unethical.

I think I just made my ethics professor proud.

PaoloSmythe

the central theme of the piece is that ultimately the NWO is based not upon countries or national identity, but corporations. these corporations excert pressure upon the global population by creating a debt dependence, which can be enhanced or allieved thru the creation (out of thin air) of more currency.

i believe that the country of Ecuador was a specific example, where by a third world nation was 'bailed out' thru the production of dollars, which were then forcibly repaid to such an extent that the standard of living actually declined significantly in real terms, whilst the 'benevolent bailers' gained profit. such practices persist and are widespread and are known as the works of 'the world bank'.

the claimed light at the end of the tunnel, exists in the removal of money. the central reason underlying this, is that the very nature of capitalism and business is amoral and completely in opposition to what would secure us with a prosperous future.

business succeeds by creating scarcity. if you have too much of a commodity, prices fall along with profits. look to the price of oil recently. the UK has supertankers of oil anchored off shore, because the oil companies do not want a decline in petrol prices which would follow an abundance of oil!

the efforts to maintain profitability, be it thru controlled product scarcity or employee redundancy is unethical to the general populace (the target for profit making)and so is doomed to fail.

it is also hypothesised that the removal of monetary systems would enable a genuinely free exchange of 'trade' and ideas that would truly contribute to collective benefit, such as to the sustainable use of environmental resources..... eg not polluting someone's land to save a bit of money etc.

in addition to this, due to a removal of monetary constraint and thus desire, most if not all criminal activity would be removed simply because there would be no motivating factor behind the committing of most crimes. it is argued (and i cannot say i entirely agree) that humans are NOT intrinsically selfish.

we act not due to human nature, but due to human nurture. our environment (of capitalistic ambition) dictates our behaviour, not our instincts.

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

snaplok

Our instincts on the primal level are just that primal. We are a warlike, greedy, manipulative species who tends to choose to destroy over nuture, take over share, and fight instead of befriend. Almost everything we do has a direct correlation to what we want, bigger car, bigger house, bigger job, better snowboard, than our neighbors. That may be an offshoot of capitalistic ambition but if you take away the monetary you are still left with the basic of human needs, the need to feed. Even before money came to play Ugg and Crunk came to war because it's in our nature. Instincts tell us to protect what we have and to get more. All capitalism has done is added the let's get to excess.

MunkySpunk

I have to disagree with this to an extent. As natives to the planet earth and therefore a product of 3.5 billion years of evolution, there are certain basic drives that humans can't ignore. One of the most basic is to pass on our genes. A corollary therefore, is our need to win mates. By extension of this, we seek to raise ourselves above the 'common masses' (other mates) by some form so we stick out to other prospective mates. Another extension of passing on genes is our need to safeguard our offspring and give them the best chance at passing on their own genes (and therefore, our genes). What I'm getting at, is humans ARE intrinsically selfish, it's all a product of natural selection. So are squirrels, creeping vines, nematodes, and bacteria. Organisms that seek to better the lives of other organisms over their own are promptly bred out.

The only thing humans have done is replace the biggest hoarde of nuts that the squirrel greedily tries to acquire with the biggest pile of money, the best TV, or the most fashionable clothes (i.e. A lion's mane). But it all boils down to the same drive: Win the best mate by being the most attractive option, pass on the genes, and ensure your offspring's survival and fitness.

This is where capitalism is able to harness the basic human desire to better oneself and one's standard of living - greed. To deny some level of greed is to deny part of what makes us living, evolving, organisms. This is also where the 'small-government' pure capitalists open themselves up to prove the idiocy of unregulated capitalism. You can't expect to base an entire economic system around the human desire to better oneself and then not expect it to get out of hand (current economic problem).

This is also where communism falls flat on its face. Communism is a great idea on paper, but who the hell wants to work 2 hours more a day in the field so 'the people' can be better off? The people doing the work see no tangible benefit to giving 110% over the easy life of giving 80%. The data's pretty clear in this regard, most recently regarding rural rice farmers in China. Production triples when you let the farmers reap the benefits of additional output. Abolishing money just means that people are going to steal something else to better themselves (i.e. make them more fit to pass their genes on). Someone else always has a better TV, car, more food... whatever.

Without inequity, we could experience some sort of analogy to evolutionary stagnation.

HOWEVER, in saying that, in order to have a functioning, thriving, and harmonious society, everyone has to have the ability to have their basic needs met (everyone has to have a realistic shot of eating, staying dry, fucking, and raising a child). This is where some sort of happy medium between pure communism and pure capitalism is required - socialism.

PaoloSmythe

and here lies the bone of contention. i accept what you say to be true. it has long been the opinion i have held. but what evidence do we have for this? seriously, what evidence do we have of this?

in the natural world, there is certainly intra-specific competition, but never to the extent of all enveloping, self-destructive, genocidal warfare. and so what allows us to be so confident that the species Homo sapien truly is intrinsically inclined to 'destroy over nurture'?

we are told it is true. but then we are told that capitalism is the only way. for a species so hell bent on conquest, how did Ugg and Crunk ever form a tribe in the first place?

and the one single, most basic aspect of this desire to have more than such and such, or the simple reliance upon the ability to feed, is dictated and exascerbated by scarcity.

ultimately, in a civilisation without the monetary system, everything is free. if everything is free, nobody needs to want for anything.

no class system exists, no one world governance, no elitism, no third world countries. there would only be an equal sharing of all the world's finite resources, in a manner that is mutually beneficial to all and sustainable for all time.

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

justdust

Gotta go with Munky on this one, at least for now. Living organisms multiplying in a finite environment have no choice but to compete or expire. Often we hook up with others to master resources more efficiently, but always out of a desire to preserve self or some finite group we associate with. Perhaps the internet will change perspectives, so that we come to associate with all of humanity as we now associate with our own family/neighbots/country, etc., but eliminating the uneven distribution of resources worldwide is a pretty daunting task. So long as there is competition for limited reasources, however, there will be conflict...whether its over greenbacks or rutabagas, makes little difference.

PaoloSmythe

Mr Munky; i have been waiting for you. what took you so long?

It has been a long time since i last read the word nematode.
to return the favour, i understand that the peacock's tail feathers are an even better example of 'status' than the lion's mane.
but as you prefer.

certainly, the acquisition of wealth is used as a criterion in selecting a breeding partner. of course, such doesn't ensure the exclusion of cheats, such as gold diggers and succubuses!

but we are mixing things up here to satisfy a POV. the arguement is that we are intrinsically selfish. evidence of this lies in our capitalistic, 'greed is good' mentality. but this monetary system is a byproduct of just one aspect of human behaviour and as such, is not a direct genetic trait.

therefore the money hungry greed 'instinct' is not an instinct at all, but is simply a product of our environment; we are told that girls like the fast cars, big TVs and designer clothes, but that doesn't make it any more true, than wimmin being told that those fellas with such things are the best sperm donors!

it does indeed. but once again, cash-centric propaganda implies the fallacy that riches are a good thing, if not the only thing to succeed in such immortality for your genetic code.

you then of course have to correlate this conclusion with those suggested by your goodself elsewhere; succinctly described as idiocracy. richness = fitness?

and the bone of contention strikes again.
you say this as if it is proven.
it is not.

this expectation for greed is based entirely within the capitalistic model which you proceed to say has gotten 'out of hand'. and it is this out of hand that has doomed it to failure and yet was the fundamental value underscoring all of it. it is self destructive, unethical and ultimately a fraud AGAINST humanity.

and we are to believe it is within our nature?

but it is the same as capitalism, in that it is a philosophy based upon and tailored entirely to, sustain and promote a monetary system; a system which is self destructive and unethical in that it makes victims of humankind!

and still, this is a symptom of the monetary system. i am not trying to bust your chops here by labouring this point; it is just that it is a difficult concept to convey.

the idea of someone having a qualitative better blah blah blah is a consequence of scarcity. without money, everyting is attainable. suddenly, without the desire for 'keeping up with the Jones' you do not need to entertain the superficial and consumeristic.... you can simply spend all of your time finding what makes you genuinely content and then if so inclined, you can share it with anybody and everybody else.

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

snaplok

I could call this a Utopia. Unfortunately, none will ever exist. Evidence is billion of years of evolution with the same basic concepts. Even as simplistic as it may sounds Ugg and Crunk were Alpha Males. Others followed them because it was to their advantage to do so, one knew how to make fire, the other were the food roamed. So suppose the other clan wants some food? Either a thought of hey can I share fire and you give me food would come about or in the case in point, I take your food and have my fire and I am better than you. No capitalism needed. Like I said before and Munky added, we are greedy as people. Always have been and probably always will be. Not necessarily a terrible thing, but capitalism has only added a fixed number to an infinite problem. We will go about getting what we think will make us better people no matter what. Even if it's the bigger stick to beat someone with. Having said stick makes one better than the other, and no money exchanged hands.

PaoloSmythe

I hope you do not think I am nit picking here. Essentially we agree; but the overall sentiment of what I have seen / heard / read reaches beyond my own perceptions of what is plausible and so I am devils advocating to see what y'all think….

This concept is not a utopia as, as you say, such will never exist.
It is important to note though, that its founders do not claim this to be perfect, but simply better than our current methods of civilisation.

Other followed an alpha, because they were suffering scarcity. However today, we are not at the dawn of modern day humankind. We have the technology and means to ensure that no such scarcity exists. In this scenario, there is no 'alpha' as we are all equal and thus enjoy equal entitlements, be it to food, fire.

This I hear and for a long time have myself subscribed to, but….

…. beyond merely being told that we are 'greedy' by other people who have themselves, been manipulated by their existing within a monetary environment, what evidence is there to support this?

Define 'better' and tell me where would the motivation lie to be 'better' if all were equal? What if to be 'better' came about in some intangible form, such as enlightening others? What if instead of economic and material gain, there became an incentive to enhance intellectual capacity?

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!