Unfortunately, and very sadly, for those of us who are deeply sincere in our convictions for promoting progressive changes in the global society... whether those efforts are presently focused towards a regional specificity— we must conclude that the Zietgeist and Venus Project movies are cartoonish illustrations of what is needed to foment an actual "Movement" towards creating better societies... however the definitions of "better" or "progressive" or "cooperative global enhancement" will eventually be played out. (We need not dwell on semantic issues in this instance.)
In short, we Cenocratic Revolutionists for progressive change must admit that while we embrace the efforts of the movies in their attempts to portray alternative orientations for corrective change, it is being widely interpreted from different perspectives... that the movies fall short of that which is needed. Indeed, they need to be vigorously updated and recast into the realities of accumulated information that is absent from the messages being conveyed in the movies.
As suggested in the Venus Project movie, there is a singularly embraced social philosophy that might be interpreted to mean the presence of a 'One World, new government order'... or a human society based on something like the efficiency of a Socialist or Communist run insect colony. It is not that a "true" form of Communism, Socialism or Democracy are bad, it's just that the sloppy practices put into place by others leaves many of us with a bad taste in our mouths. No one has actually ever experienced a real version of these social systems. The Venus Project movie falls short of its intended explication.
Similarly, as suggested in the Zeitgeist films (Moving Forward and Addendum), the means of reaching a collectively potent society rests on the initial adoption of a collective anti-trust mindset against the use of the present monetary system— as well a collective embrace of a "resource-based" economy ideology, notwithstanding that there is a naive interpretation about the viable sustainability and renewability of our resources... and not to mention allocation as well as equalized re-distribution(s).
In short, we need better movies... and can make better ones involving the vision of others whose intentions are similarly focused on pushing for corrective social change. Succinctly put, these movies are not good enough. Since we do not yet have a person or group of people portraying the part of leading a movement towards social reform as did Marx, Lenin and Mao... (despite what misgivings some readers may hold about these examples and would much prefer others)... the Zeitgeist and Venus Project films are representative ideologies being used by a few as surrogate leaders of social reform, though there may be an actual one in the making... somewhere.
The message in the Zeitgeist film about non-participation in the monetary system is like a child refusing to participate in a game, and prefers to sit in some self-made corner (of their world) as a protest to those who participate because they have not been provided the rules for transitioning into a better game. It is very much an inverted "time out" tool used by some teachers attempting to inculcated corrective social/classroom behavior; wherein the teacher (a participating factor in "the system") is subjected to a period of exclusion; and is, in the Zeitgeist film, portrayed by a refusal to participate in the usage of money. And though this analogy may appear to some readers as being a convoluted example, others may find it a creative exploration of two separate scenarios being inter-twined.
Just because a few thousand people agree that it is a good idea to stop a system by effecting a stance of non-participation in a monetary system, does not translate into automatically creating a better system. Such an antic is like someone refusing to wear cleats while playing baseball or football, when the game is played on turf which requires the use thereof for better footing. The same goes for the usage of money. The social playing field has been designed in accord with the usage of money (or variant bartering representatives)... with laws (game rules) and individualized personal philosophies which require its usage. When there are billions of people who do participate in the game, and laws are constructed as well as enforced by those who may nonetheless find the system imperfect... but know of no other way in which to carry out a bartering system of exchange for mutual benefit; those agreeing with a non-participation attitude simply turn themselves into an ineffectual fringe element or sub-culture... but they nonetheless engage in the monetary system in one fashion or another— or they will perish. Even if they say they can survive on the good will (generosity) of others, this good will provides food, clothing and shelter by way of some legal or illegal exchange. In short, non-participation must be effectively replaced with a system you will participate in, and can convince others it is a better system.
In short, the pacifist approach is particularly naive about the interplay of different "social forces" taking place. We can not realistically participate in a collective "Walden's Pond" venture of survivalism in this day in age... though the mindset is to be found here and there being explored by those who have become fed up with the "system": In giving some explication of this comment, let a short article from the Britannica on Henry David Thoreau be illustrated, keeping in mind that Thoreau did not live entirely off the land since he was, time and again invited over for dinner/supper with friends, though this bit of history is absent from the article. And also note he was a person who had ready access to a job and additional comforts. In a sense he cast off his worldly goods like Buddha supposedly did... or even John Chapman (known as "Johnny Appleseed"). But instead of the Bodhi or Apple tree, Thoreau found pine trees to sit under:
...Back in Concord Thoreau rejoined his family's business, making pencils and grinding graphite. By early 1845 he felt more restless than ever, until he decided to take up an idea of a Harvard classmate who had once built a waterside hut in which one could loaf or read. In the spring Thoreau picked a spot by Walden Pond, a small glacial lake located 2 miles (3 km) south of Concord on land Emerson owned.
Early in the spring of 1845, Thoreau, then 27 years old, began to chop down tall pines with which to build the foundations of his home on the shores of Walden Pond. From the outset the move gave him profound satisfaction. Once settled, he restricted his diet for the most part to the fruit and vegetables he found growing wild and the beans he planted. When not busy weeding his bean rows and trying to protect them from hungry woodchucks or occupied with fishing, swimming, or rowing, he spent long hours observing and recording the local flora and fauna, reading, and writing A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers (1849). He also made entries in his journals, which he later polished and included in Walden. Much time, too, was spent in meditation.
Out of such activity and thought came Walden, a series of 18 essays describing Thoreau's experiment in basic living and his effort to set his time free for leisure. Several of the essays provide his original perspective on the meaning of work and leisure and describe his experiment in living as simply and self-sufficiently as possible, while in others Thoreau describes the various realities of life at Walden Pond: his intimacy with the small animals he came in contact with; the sounds, smells, and look of woods and water at various seasons; the music of wind in telegraph wires—in short, the felicities of learning how to fulfill his desire to live as simply and self-sufficiently as possible. The physical act of living day by day at Walden Pond is what gives the book authority, while Thoreau's command of a clear, straightforward but elegant style helped raise it to the level of a literary classic.
Thoreau stayed for two years at Walden Pond (1845–47). In the summer of 1847 Emerson invited him to stay with his wife and children again, while Emerson himself went to Europe. Thoreau accepted, and in September 1847 he left his cabin forever.
Midway in his Walden sojourn Thoreau had spent a night in jail. On an evening in July 1846 he encountered Sam Staples, the constable and tax gatherer. Staples asked him amiably to pay his poll tax, which Thoreau had omitted paying for several years. He declined, and Staples locked him up. The next morning a still-unidentified lady, perhaps his aunt, Maria, paid the tax. Thoreau reluctantly emerged, did an errand, and then went huckleberrying. A single night, he decided, was enough to make his point that he could not support a government that endorsed slavery and waged an imperialist war against Mexico. His defense of the private, individual conscience against the expediency of the majority found expression in his most famous essay, “Civil Disobedience,” which was first published in May 1849 under the title “Resistance to Civil Government.” The essay received little attention until the 20th century, when it found an eager audience. To many, its message still sounds timely: there is a higher law than the civil one, and the higher law must be followed even if a penalty ensues. So does its consequence: “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”
Source: "Thoreau, Henry David." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
But going to prison just so one can feel that they are truly and honorably "just" for holding views against the current establishment, is just as self-defeating as a suicide bomber. In other words you take yourself out of the action and in effect, retreat from the world of the living. Needless to say, this is stupid. We don't need Revolutionists (social reformers) going to prison and imagining themselves to be a Gandhi or Hitler... from whom may come a Manifesto or Mein Kampf (translated: "My Struggle"). There is no one backing us up into a wall as yet... even though we may become entirely frustrated with what is described as a corrupt, fixed or irrational system and realize that present "politically" and legally correct methods for producing change are negligibly effective at best. Nonetheless, we are barely beginning to scratch the surface of a Revolution in the making.
While presenting a futuristic social setting with proposed architectural drafts may pique the interest of wide-eye idealists, those of us whose feet, hands and backs have toiled in the soil of actual construction, know all too well that the structures may be (futuristically) housed by socio-paths or psycho-paths of varying degrees. The architecture alone will not automatically transform a population into some greater emergent social being when it is presently suffused with self-defeating or dysfunctional forms of social education, familial up-bringing and governing maintenance. No less, what do we do with those already in prison... before, during and after construction? No matter how futuristic a social infrastructure may appear, it is rather silly to think that the mentality of a career criminal will be automatically transformed into some believed-in enhanced human being to fulfill some futuristically proposed citizenry role. A monkey remains a monkey even if you put a cellphone in its hand, place a computer on its lap, or place it behind the wheel of a $200,000 vehicle. And let us specifically about what will be done with career sex offenders? Even if prison populations are magically cut in half or to a third of their present size because of some imagined wide-spread behavior modification program that will supposedly emerge from all the futuristic construction; what sort of social response will we have to career criminals, be they a no collar, blue collar or white collar person? What if a person simply refuses to go along with the laws of the proposed futuristic society? Will we also warehouse them? Execute them? Alter their genetics or place another brain in their body?
Or do we simply get rid of humans because somewhere down the line in this futuristic society it is decided humanity can never be genetically cleaned of an internalized direction of motivation to be free of all controls... even after the word "freedom" becomes defined by those who will write the programs of an Artificial Intelligence set into place as the government and police force? Will we become so self- and planet Earth- absorbed that the dissolution of a military means we will have no future protection from possible asteroid or alien creature attacks?
And if a few of us decide to take it upon ourselves to force global changes by simultaneously attacking (and killing) thousands of business, government and religious leaders without providing the philosophical ground-work to have the public become unanimously transformed into a spoken body of agreement; it should then be of no surprise that violent Martial Law may well become enforced and all of us executed... because we did not take the time to create social-improvement movies whose message is heard and accepted by those in the military and police forces. We need better movies that transgress the superficiality of information being presented.
We don't need movies which become turned into sociological fetishisms to be used as masturbatory intellectualisms... by those who are no doubt sincere in their desire for creating a better global society, but have had no other illustration presented to them. We can't have someone say a future government is going to be run by an advanced Artificial Intelligence without providing the means of transition and a propositional governing formula. Creating fanciful futuristic buildings will not automatically transform the nitty gritty behaviors of the human primate with an underlying genetics being incrementally contoured by a decaying planet and the poisons being eaten and breathed in everyday. Even "natural" foods are not natural since they are the result of modifications in a laboratory... and do not occur in nature without the assistance of human growing techniques.
We need better movies. The Zeitgeist and Venus Project movies are not good enough. They leave us with too many unanswered questions and no explicit blue-print for transitioning the whole of humanity in every sector. How do we transform society from a monetary system backed by laws and numerous institutions, into an assumed better one that does not use money? Where is the blue-print, what is the cost of the construction, what materials are needed, and who is to participate in the transformation on the business, government (legal), and religious organizations? How will religions survive if there is no tithing to collect? Simply saying we will do away with religions is (at present), very unrealistic to the many practitioners throughout the world.
Again, we need better films. In contrast, the Zeitgeist and Venus Project exhibitions, despite the sincerity and genuine concern for and interest in creating a better social system; are McGuffey readers or a Dick and Jane book series of stories compared to what is desperately required.
For example, the money collected by those involved in the Occupy Movement... if it isn't already spent... and hopefully spent on articulating purposive social change... could be used as a starting incentive for the creation of a new film. We can not rely on those whose excess money is being used to promote the production of so many ("more of the same") movies being exhibited by the Red (or Blue) box movie dispensing machines, nor those at the corner movie rental stores available in some locations... much less the pay-per-view kind. Far too many movies are exhibiting one of three scenarios:
... as if these story-lines were enough to satisfy the disaffections many of us have with current forms of governance, and feel good about having accomplished something of great social value by projecting ourselves onto and into the portrayed animations through vicarious identification with one or more characters or a given situation. Non-Revolutionists (non-social reformists) can not produce the film we are in desperate need of. They are just as much out of touch with us as are politicians. They just do not get it. And even if they do, they do not know what to do with the information even if they had the available resources to produce such a film as we are seeking.
Such a film must deal with the reality beyond the scope of the Earth, inasmuch as we can determine by present means of analysis, knowing all too well that our interpretations of data may well look rather naive or humorous to future generations; as do the views of ancient peoples to us in various circumstances. We can not have the view of building a better society on Earth by excluding its state of affairs with respect to on-going degradations. Nor can we ignore the degradations occurring with the Moon, the Sun, and the effects of expansion in the larger galaxy. Present governing systems are ad hoc applications of patch-work impulsiveness which attempt to counter-act some perceived or imagined threat... like the reflexive nature of a venus fly trap, fly in a web, or other stationary ego-centricity.
The film must not disinclude a sensibility involving religion as an actuality perceptively defined accurately as adherents believe... contrasted with the view that the variety of religions and associated philosophies are little more than emotionally-laden psychological survival tools, used as a means to help someone weather the vagaries of change occurring socially and environmentally. We must be able to provide alternative views that others may find more useful than their practiced reliance on religious ideas which keep them mired in a bog that contributes to their recurring experiences which trigger a return to a religious orientation used as a familiar standby... like a person whose main occupation is to work steadily at temporary jobs... because no opportunity for a full time job has become available to them with respect to their abilities; which may exist in a latent or dormant position... having not had an extended moment to be expressed.
In dealing with describing the illegitimate forms of Democracy being variously practiced throughout the world, an actual model of Democracy must be described as well. If we create a film whose main theme is to disparage but not provide applicable alternatives, the film will be little more than a biased news report, internet blog, or website that catalogues government malignancies. We must define what an Actual Democracy means and show it being practiced. Likewise, we must define what an Actual Communism and Socialism are and show them being practiced. Contrasts and similarities must be easily identifiable.
We need to show the potential promise of relying on a technocratic society shown in the Venus Project film, and the potential limitations and causes for concern that we may or may not be able to surmount. We also need to show how a reliance on an Artificial Intelligence-guided governance creates the conditions for alarm because of the biases which human programmers may include in the programming... and that attempts to offset one bias necessarily may invite another form as a counteractent. The described lack of needing a Bill of Rights (or perhaps even a Constitution) needs to be addressed, since without written guarantees, more liberties can be abused over time.
An illustration of how current forms of governance assist in the perpetuation of recurring social problems needs to be addressed, and that political systems which practice an interest in "social change" (assumedly for the better), is not to be equated with the exercise of "political change" with respect to exchanging one elected status quo performer for another. Yet, there are a host of other problematic governing issues of which the following list is a small example:
If we are to offer alternatives to Economic practices, we must show how they will work in practice and how the transition from the old to the new can take effect. We must address the problems with educating a public that has been habitually trained to see things one way and how the view and practice of another way will be appreciably better for them and everyone. We can not simply say something will be better and expect everyone to alter their perceptions accordingly, they must be able to witness it first hand. There are far too many people who have suspicions against the government not to suspect more of the same deceptions and lies from those promoting a different form of government. In other words, simply saying something is going to be better does not make it so. Feeding, clothing and sheltering suspicion, prejudice, bigotry, hate, criminality, ignorance, etc., only means that such regimes of personality have been fed, clothed and sheltered. Improving infrastructure does not automatically mean it comes with a significant level of techniques for behavior modification.
We must be cognizant that the film may be of greater value if produced like a theatrical production, wherein different Acts can be shown in the allotted time of a classroom because of its specific relatedness to a given topic being addressed by an educator, civic speaker, club meeting, etc...
If necessary, we must produce the film several different times using speakers, actors and actresses from different racial and cultural backgrounds. In other words, one version will show white American people, and the others will alternatively use American or French or British (etc.) blacks, American Indians, Hispanics/Lations, Germans, Italians, different Asians, different Africans, Hungarians, Russians, etc... While some may say this reeks of prejudice, others will note that prejudice can sometimes be more readily seen if it is contrasted in the same setting using different peoples who will be more able to recognize similarities with other groups experiencing the same situation. In other words, it is difficult for naive, ignorant or prejudiced people to appreciate that all peoples have the same color of blood unless a situation causes the spilling of blood... be it by accident or intent. Then again, some prejudices are so deeply ingrained that the core of a problem lays deep in the core of a person. Some cores appear to be so rotten they are infested with worms. How does behavior modification not only de-worm a person, but help a core be refurbished... and how many rotten cores have been caused by a faulty form of governance? While the analogy can be taken too literally, as a metaphor, it explains the situation we may no doubt encounter as we try to alter society for its greater role in assisting humans to reach their potentials... however the word "potentials" may eventually be defined.